Book Analysis

Title: Managing Interpersonal Conflict¹

Authors: William A. Donohue and Robert Kolt

The following analysis will examine each chapter of Donohue and Kolt's book, Managing Interpersonal Conflict.  Each chapter will include three sections:  what did I learn, what do I need to remember, change, and/or put into practice.

A.  CHAPTER 1 - UNDERSTANDING THE CONFLICT EPISODE

1.  What did I learn?

Conflict is a part of life.  This in itself is nothing new.  In fact, it is rather obvious in reading the daily newspaper.  It is also quite apparent when living in a family.  The important thing to learn is that you must face conflict and use it as an opportunity for personal growth.  Opportunities are inherent in a conflict situation.  Roles can be more clearly defined, relationships can be strengthened, and commitment to overall goals may be realized as a result of working through a conflict.

A good definition of conflict is provided by Donohue and Kolt:  “a situation in which interdependent people express (manifest or latent) differences in satisfying their individual needs and interests, and they experience interference from each other in accomplishing these goals.”  This definition frames several key thoughts regarding conflict.

Conflict requires interdependence - People must have something in common that has caused the conflict.  The common attribute may be a relationship, a goal, an interest, or a need.  Something has drawn them together in the conflict.  People with no mutual interest or interdependence have no opportunity to create a conflict.

Conflict may be manifest or latent - When a problem occurs, the parties involved may choose to ignore it or live with it without saying anything about it.  This is latent conflict.  If the parties begin talking about the conflict, either with each other or just within their “side” of the conflict, the conflict has become manifest or exposed.  Latent conflict is difficult to detect. Usually, conflict cannot be adequately managed until it becomes manifest.

Conflict involves needs and/or interests - Needs are things which people depend on for survival.  Interests are all other things people desire or want in life.  Conflict over interests will be much easier to manage than conflict over needs due to the importance attached to it by each party.

Conflict is triggered by interference - Each party in a conflict situation perceives some level of interference by the other which has caused the conflict.  The perception may be valid or not.  It does not really matter.  What matters is the perception since it has brought one or both parties into dispute with one another and the dispute must be addressed.

There are seven levels of conflict in Donohue and Kolt’s model.  These levels increase in intensity.  The first level is no conflict, followed by level two latent (or concealed) conflict.  Level three brings a phase where there are acknowledged problems to solve.  Level four surfaces a more destructive dimension as the problem becomes a needs-centered dispute.  In level five, people seek help as the conflict has gotten out of control.  Fight or flight occurs next in level six.  The last level is termed “intractable” where the fight has become more of a cause to be won at all costs.  Conflict may move in and out of these levels as it progresses over time.  The point to remember is the level of conflict determines the response to it.

In the early levels, conflict is generally constructive in nature.  As the intensity progresses, conflict generally turns more and more destructive.  Relationships are wounded then broken.  Previously commitments are cancelled.  Unity and teamwork are shattered.  Value may be gained from conflict that is well managed.  But destructive conflict has bad consequences for the people and the processes involved.

Many guiding principles were introduced for understanding the development of conflict.  These guidelines deal with the cyclical nature of conflict, the need to understand the context in which conflict emerges, the relational implications of conflict, and the many functions, served by conflict such as clarifying roles, groups, and issues.

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

I learned in this chapter to expect conflict between groups or individuals.  In fact, I believe I should delight when it is not happening.  I also learned that avoiding conflict usually means more trouble later.  Understanding how conflict develops and the potential steps to manage it will both help to minimize the pain.

It is critical during a conflict to focus on interests rather than on any personal threats, insults or peculiar personalities.  Focusing on this latter list will succeed only in perpetuating and escalating the conflict.  Conflict must be moved from an emotional plane to a more logical plane.  Emotions will undoubtedly be present in conflict situations but they must be minimized.  Feelings must give way to facts in order to have a healthy dialogue and eventual resolution of the problems.  A particularly appropriate quote about this emotional/logical issue is offered on page 24:  “All the energy rushes from the thinking part of your brain to the feeling part.  This makes you stupid and incapable of thinking.”  So try not lose control during conflicts.

B.  CHAPTER 2 - CONFRONTING CONFLICT

1.  What did I learn?

A key task in managing conflict is to decide on confronting it.  Whether you should confront conflict, when to confront it, and how to confront it are all crucial issues in how successfully conflict can be managed.  In determining whether to confront conflict, consider the relationships involved, the type and severity of the issues, the capacity of the parties to communicate and reason, the amount of time available to negotiate, and the personal safety of individuals involved in the conflict.  When to confront groups or individuals is a factor determined by planning in advance of negotiation, the current state of emotions, and the effect of time pressures on the conflict situation.  How to confront conflict gets into the necessity of a managed approach,  the need to define the crisis and move out of it, and the critical importance of structure during a conflict.

The four “R” method is a helpful tool for communication.  The focus is on helping parties understand one another first.  The four “R”’s are:

• Receive the other’s comments without interruption.
• Repeat the other person’s comments as objectively as possible.
• Request the other person’s proposed ways of dealing with the problem.
• Review the options to decide on the best approach.

This model helps each party to seek to understand the other’s point of view first before stating their own position.  Just knowing that someone really understands your perspective goes a long way toward breaking down the walls of resistence in a conflict situation.  It also encourages active listening as opposed to framing your own response while the other is talking.  I made this point with my son’s first grade class.  During a time where the children were not paying attention to what the teacher was trying to say, I told the children, “Did you know why God made us with two ears and only one mouth?  So we could listen twice as much as we talk!”  One little boy’s eyes opened as wide as grapefruits and exclaimed, “Wow! How’d you know that?”  The point was plain and they began to listen to their teacher.

The chapter closes with a discussion of how people react to conflict.  The conflict goes through periods of escalation and deescalation through skirting the issue, personalizing it, complaining, sniping, aggressing, and, hopefully, to a validating stage.
 

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

The thing that struck me in studying this chapter is that confrontation takes a lot of courage.  You must see more benefit in confronting and working through a conflict than the painful effects of avoiding it.  Confronting takes up-front planning and constant attention to reassess and adjust the management strategy.

I also recognize the importance of the four “R” method for listening.  I have a tendency to talk over people in an attempt at persuasion.  No matter how strong my own case may be, running over another in the process of explaining how right I am will not gain their agreement or commitment to it.  True communication requires give and take.  I must initiate the giving in order to be heard.  When the other person feels he or she is being heard, then my attempts at persuasion will be much more effective.  In the process, I might well learn something myself!

C.  CHAPTER 3 - FACE SAVING

1.  What did I learn?

There are two elements of conflict requiring close attention:  attribution and face needs.  These relate largely to the thoughts and feelings of the other party in a conflict situation.  While a well managed conflict will move in focus from feelings to facts, the feelings must be dealt with in a way that draws the parties closer together in the resolution process.  Attribution and face needs, poorly managed, can drive the parties farther apart.

Attribution

Attribution deals with the question “who is responsible?” or “who caused this to happen?”  It is a natural tendency on our part to want to assign blame for a problem.  I have workd in many companies that spend a great deal of time assigning blame, greater, perhaps, than they spend on trying to resolve the problem.  In addition to blame, we tend to assign motives, attitudes, and feelings to the other parties when a conflict starts.  Statements to the effect of “You did this because you think you are better than me”, “You hate me”, “You got mad because I did not meet your schedule so now you are trying to get even” reveal one party attributing things to the other.  Now there are times when this attribution is correct.  But many times in a conflict, attribution deals with intangible things that one party cannot know of the other.

Attribution is categorized into two areas:  external and internal.  External attribution occurs when one party sees things about the situation or things external to the individual which could have triggered the conflict.  One party might see the environment in which the other party was raised contributing to the conflict.  Internal attribution is when one party sees an internal characteristic or personality trait as the primary culprit.  “He is always grouchy on Monday mornings so that is why he wanted me to ...” one might say.  Research, according to Donohue and Kolt, says that people primarily make personality attribution as opposed to situational attribution.  It satisfies a basic need for self-protection, that is eliminating my own potential role in the conflict, better than focusing on the situation.

Donohue and Kolt contend that “...when people focus on personality conflicts, ...[they] see their problems as fundamentally irreconcilable.  Personality factors are not negotiable” (p.52).  I found it interesting that the authors believe people cannot change.  They state definitively that “personality traits are not changeable” (p.52).  So personality traits are not allowed as a legitimate cause of dispute.  I differ with this opinion.  Many times personality traits are a source of conflict.  Getting people to understand how they act, how they manage, how they respond to pressure helps them to better control their behavior.  Donohue and Kolt make no connection here between personality and behavior as it relates to conflict.  They encourage a focus on situational attribution and other factors that do not violate individual needs as does personality attribution.  This, I believe, reflects a bad, general attitude in our culture that no one is really responsible for their behavior.  Behavior is determined by one’s genes or environment.

Attribution also leads to anticipated reactions, or expectations of how people will react in the future.  One might speculate “She will go ballistic when she hears this...”  On the one hand, it is good to work through the possibilities in a conflict.  On the other, it is not good to let your expectations of the other party prevent you from continuing the process of resolving the conflict.  Many times we anticipate reactions and just give up.  Other times we anticipate reactions and change our plans based on this anticipation.  “Bob will not like this so let us do ... instead” is the type of thinking that goes on.  The authors encourage an expectation of success in the conflict management process to keep one on track and committed to the process.

Communication between the parties in a conflict can help overcome the problems inherent in attribution.  Also, sober introspection can help one to properly assign one’s own responsibility in the conflict.  Each party needs to keep a grip on the known facts rather than the speculated motives, actions, and potential reactions of the other party.

Face Needs

Competitive threats during a conflict trigger a self-protection or self-preservation mechanism inside us.  The desire to look good, be right, or be successful are typically associated with one’s personal identity.  These things are called face needs.  It is important for people to “save face” in a situation.  Otherwise, you will drive them away from you and make resolution of the conflict impossible.  Also, there is an attribution that one’s credibility is diminished when one “loses face.”

There are different types of face needs including:

• Face maintenance - where one works to enhance or preserve his image as credible and worthy before the other party.
• Face saving - where one works to repair the real or perceived damage to one’s face when threatened by the other party.
• Face attacking - where one threatens or attacks the other party in an attempt to diminish their credibility or worthiness in the conflict.
• Face supporting - where one works to bolster the image of the other party to elevate their credibility or self-worth in the conflict.

In managing face needs, the authors recommend several key things to keep in mind.  There is a natural interface between attribution and face needs.  Attribution by one party can lead to face saving, face attacking, or face maintenance actions by the other party which further the conflict.  Attribution of one’s personal responsibility in the conflict can lead to face supporting actions by the other party and a more collaborative approach to resolution.  So controlling one’s attribution can help to control threats to face needs.  Also, trained incapacities have an impact on our use of attribution and face saving tactics.  One may have been rewarded at work for getting the job finished on time in spite of hammering on people unmercifully.  This tends to train one to solve problems in this same way whether one is at work or at home.  One is then trained that the real problem is that people are not working hard enough.  This is an attribution resulting from the trained incapacity.  Other cultural and environmental factors lead to trained incapacities.  The conclusion is that we must be alert for these trained incapacities in ourselves and in the other parties in order to successfully manage attribution and face needs.
 

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

I gained insight into a number of behaviors I have noticed about myself in prior conflict situations.  First, I need to eliminate bias from my perception of the causes of a conflict.  I must be sure to attribute my appropriate part in causing it.  A great need I have is to worry less about face maintenance.  “Grin and bear it” goes the saying and it is appropriate for me.  I should work at face supporting strategies for others.  God’s focus on individuals is to see them as His creatures made in His image with capabilities and skills that can be used for His glory.  I should strive to see others for who they are in God’s eyes and what they can become rather than what they are doing to me today.  Finally, when searching for solutions, I might best begin by looking at the processes which involve the individuals in conflict instead of at the individuals themselves.  This can lead me toward collaboration and a healthy problem-solving approach.

D.  CHAPTER 4 - STRUCTURING THE ISSUES

1.  What did I learn?

Structure facilitates problem solving and conflict resolution.  Each party in a conflict feels a need to be in control.  Structure helps to meet that need.  Though the problem still exists, each party sees a defined way of approaching the problem and working together to reach resolution.  Structure also helps to minimize “stupid” thinking and actions.  Each party understands what will happen and when.  This helps to ease their tension and think rationally.

The authors define several phases to conflict that are helpful in working through a problem.  It is difficult to keep parties focused on the structure, especially in a crisis situation.  Nevertheless, the more structure that can be established and maintained, the greater the likelihood of success in managing the conflict.

Phase one is called “Setting the Stage.”  It consists of orienting the various parties to the problem solving approach (This assumes the parties are ready to discuss the problems --other preliminary steps may need to be taken before individuals are prepared to deal with the problem in a controlled, rational approach).  Each person in the conflict must understand the purpose or goals of the conflict resolution approach, the basic ground rules designed to protect them and keep things fair, the steps involved in the process, and what they can expect out of the process.  An important but often overlooked step in this stage is to assess each person’s commitment to the problem resolution process.  Clarification of goals and understanding the process may help gain the commitment needed to work through the problem.

Phase two is “Defining the Issues.”  Another word for this phase might be “The Listening/Listing Stage.”  Each party must be given an opportunity to list and define the issues from their point of view.  These issues must be integrated into a comprehensive statement of the problem.  Each party must own up to their own feelings and perceptions about the problem without attribution and face threatening tactics discussed earlier.  Each party is allowed to state their perceptions but not the perceptions, motives, or potential reactions of the other party.  A critical element of this phase is to use the surface level problems cited to probe the group for discussion of the core issues.  This is a difficult task to facilitate.  One suggestion is to deal with only one issue at a time;  keep the group focused.  Boarding the issues also helps to focus the entire group on an impersonal piece of paper rather than on the individual sitting across the table.  This sets the stage for the next phase.

Phase three is “Processing the Issues.”  In this phase, each issue should be categorized and prioritized.  In terms of ease of resolution, each issue is categorized in increasing order of difficulty as follows:  data or factual issues, interest issues, relational and power issues, value issues, and emotional issues.  The issues should then be worked in this same order.  The theory is that the easier issues to deal with, such as factual issues, can be resolved quickly.  The group then has some success early in the process giving them the confidence to continue on to the harder issues.

Phase four is “Resolving the Issues.”  The focus of conflict should gradually shift from differentiation in the early stages to integration in the later stages.  This takes patience.  People naturally want to jump to a quick-fix solution.  But issues must be boarded and discussed to make people feel they have been heard and to reach an agreement that will last.  The idea in phase four is to create lots of options.  Hold firmly to the goals but be flexible in the methods used to achieve them.  The other key to this phase is to create a detailed solution.  Once agreement is reached, continue to work through the solution until a detailed solution is documented.  This not only helps each party understand the solution but it will help prevent individuals from “forgetting” what they have agreed to do and starting the conflict all over again.

Managing conflict in a crisis situation follows the same general approach.  A crisis, however, does tend to influence how we go about the different phases.  The authors point to a number of factors to consider during a crisis that will yield an ineffective resolution, if resolution is achieved at all.

• Gross ommissions in surveying alternatives & objectives:  The crisis tends focus people on only one outcome thus limiting the mutually agreeable possibilities.
• Failure to examine major costs and risks of preferred choice:  The urgency of the crisis pushes individuals into proposing nearly anything to relieve the problem.
• Poor information search:  Again, the urgency and level of pain during a crisis tends to increase the bias of each party toward one solution and limit each party’s desire to probe deeply for timely and accurate information that would help resolve the problem.
• Failure to reconsider previously rejected alternatives:  The tendency is to fail to consider previously rejected alternatives even when new information becomes available that directly affected the decision to reject.  This failure to reconsider is primarily an emotional reaction, a false attribution of the other party’s willingness to negotiate.
• Failure to work out detailed agreement:  Once an agreement in principle is reached, the parties tend to relax from the pressure and let “underlings” handle the details.  This may lead to conflict among the “underlings” from either side who either were not involved in the resolution process or surface real issues with certain details the previous parties had not considered.

Structure creates rules for a fair fight just as a referree at a boxing match creates (and hopefully enforces) rules for boxing opponents.  Helpful considerations for structuring the issues are:

• Plan ahead -- the more difficult problems requires more planning.
• Patience -- Slow down the conflict, build structure into the process, and avoid getting stupid.
• Information Quality -- Be sure to gather timely and accurate information on all viewpoints.
• Underlying issues -- Constantly work to move the focus of conflict away from surface issues toward the substantive, root causes.
• Options -- In all conflict situations, you must provide multiple options.
• Agreements -- Do not finish until a detailed agreement is worked out.

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

I need to remember the importance of structuring the conflict in order to avoid impatient, stupid words.  Proactively work at conflict management rather than react to issues as they come up.  Also, I need to patiently work through the phases rather than jumping immediately to a potential solution.  I and the other party need time to gather and process accurate information on the root causes.  This is essential in defining the issue, without which a lasting resolution is not possible.
 

E.  CHAPTER 5 - EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATION

1.  What did I learn?

In this chapter, negotiation is discussed first as an introductory topic and then later examined as it relates to power.  Power is defined in the context of its role in negotiation, its relation to dependencies between individuals, and finally its use in negotiation.

Effective negotiation requires a good faith exchange between the conflicting parties.  This means each side must earnestly work toward an agreement by offering and considering proposals, making reasonable counterproposals and concessions to keep the negotiation alive.  When one or more parties are closed toward anything offered by the others, discussion stalls and negotiation is no longer possible.  Negotiation requires open, honest exchange.

In any conflict situation, there is a role that power plays in either helping or hindering resolution.  Whether power is a conscious strategy employed or an unconscious way of dealing with people is of little consequence -- power plays a role in influencing the outcome of the negotiation.  Power is, in fact, defined by Donohue and Kolt as “the ability to influence or control events” (p.90).

Power does require some relationship between two parties in order to be effective.  A boss with no employees has no power.  A boss with employees in a terrible job market wields considerable power over those people.  Power is an abstract concept that changes over time.  Should another large employer enter the terrible job market, the power of the boss over his employees diminishes considerably.  Power also changes when it moves from an abstract concept or threat into a realized action.  Sometimes the level of power diminishes when it is known by all parties.  In this case, the perceived power was greater than the actual power exerted.

Power is derived from manipulating dependencies.  Dependencies exist in many levels or contexts.  The particular context has a definite impact on how the negotiation will proceed and how power is derived.

• Using Culture to Gain Power -- Cultural differences, while many times a hindrance to negotiation, can be used as a tool to manipulate the negotiation session.  The example is given of how Japanese businessmen routinely use their distinct culture as a lever in negotiations to wield greater negotiating power.  They refuse to talk business until they get to know the other party.  A group of American businessmen were frustrated after two weeks of trying unsuccessfully to talk business.  Near the end of their stay, the Japanese businessmen finally agreed to talk.  At this point the Americans were willing to settle for just about anything.
• Ideology -- A person’s belief about the social order or world view affects how that person views the other party in a negotiation and how they will relate to the individuals involved.  Individuals may try to impose their ideology on the other side.  They may also purposefully try not to impose their views on others.  Each ideology determines the dependencies that will exist between the two parties.
• Institutions -- Any group of individuals that work together for sustained periods can be considered institutions.  In these institutions, certain communication habits are developed, procedures for dealing with normal and crisis events are set up, and patterns of interaction between individuals are established.  When individuals from one institution engage another in negotiation, each tries to impose its own institutional norms on the other.
• Relational dependency -- When a friendship develops between individuals, it creates a dependency founded on control, trust, and intimacy.  The more personal the friendship, the deeper the dependency between the two.
• Language --- The need for language develops from our need to communicate.  Parties from different countries may use different languages to communicate, creating a potential barrier to negotiation.  Even the standard industry terminology can be different between two firms in different parts of the same country.  The need for communication between two parties creates a certain language dependency that can be used as a lever in negotiation.

Power strategies for manipulating these dependencies consist of those which expand the level of dependency and those that reduce it, each with its own effects.

• Dependency expanding -- This strategy seeks to expand one’s power by increasing the other party’s dependency on you, thus giving you an advantage in negotiation.  This can be done by trying to enhance one’s credibility in the eyes of the other party or by manipulating things people value such as money or esteem.
• Dependency reducing -- This strategy seeks to expand power by reducing dependency, thus letting the other party know you do not necessarily need them at all.  This can be accomplished through discrediting the other party, rejecting their offers, or punishing them in some way. Other indirect methods of reducing dependency involve imposing some rules or standards on the other party to restrict their ability to react.

Each of these power strategies can be used in the same negotiation session depending on what effect is desired.  Factors influencing the power strategy decision include how much time is available, the climate or degree of control which exists in the relationship, and what has been used historically by the parties.

An important concept in negotiation strategy is to balance power between the conflicting parties.  Imbalanced power hinders collaboration between the two sides.  It tempts the party with the power to run over the personal needs of the other.  Each of these carries with it the danger of one or more parties being uncommitted to the agreement.

Power can be balanced through the power party empowering the powerless party.  This can be done by focusing on common needs first, giving control of certain aspects of negotiation to the less powerful party,  revealing how much power the lesser party actually wields.

So power, in the context of negotiation, is a powerful tool to manipulate the outcome.  It is multidimensional in nature and changing constantly over the course of negotiation.  It requires some relational context and is most effectively used when balanced between the parties involved in conflict.
 

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

The interesting thing I learned is that it is best to balance power between parties in cofnflict.  This enhances the ability of each party to work together to reach an agreement.  I should never use power in place of honest negotiation because resolutions by force rarely work.  I should also consider the impact of whatever personal charisma, conviction, or credibility I bring to a negotiation.  This is critical lest I express relatively unimportant items as though they are the gospel truth.
 

F.  CHAPTER 6 - NEGOTIATING IN THE FACE OF POWER

1.  What did I learn?

Since power is so intimately tied to the relationship between parties in a negotiation, it is important to understand and assess it prior to determining strategies for negotiation.  This chapter then deals with negotiation strategies based on the power levels that exist between parties.  The right strategy for negotiation needs to be determined prior to any formal interaction.  The context for negotiating can be competitive or collaborative, depending on the issues involved, the parties involved, and the various power levels.  In planning a competitive or collaborative negotiation strategy, each party must establish:

• Clear goals which explicitly define the focus and expectations of each party.
• The value it places on the relationship.
• Its relative skills in communicating, confronting, and collaborating.
• The time limits involved.

There are strategic factors to keep in mind that affect the negotiation context.  The opportunity to communicate enforces rigor and formality on the negotiation process if restrictive.  If the communication channel is interactive and open, negotiation can proceed more quickly and with a more casual style.  Information exchanged or available to one or both parties also affects the relationsihp and strategies of negotiation.  “Openness tends to breed more openness” (p.118).  Message strategies also reveal the type of negotiation context a party desires to use.  Proposals, objections raised, and the type of concessions given or withheld show how competitive or collaborative a party wishes to be.

Competitive negotiation strategy is defined as a fairly informal set of rules that are rigidly used in competitive negotiations.  These rules are:

Rule 1    Deliver an opening bid just under the point of insulting your opponent.

Never deliver an opening bid that is accepted right away.  This usually means you have given the other side more than you had to give to reach an agreement.

Rule 2    Try not to give the opening bid.

If you have a choice let the other side give the first bid.  It reveals much about their strategies and viewpoint of the conflict.

Rule 3    Avoid conceding first.

This is normally viewed as a sign of weakness by the opponent.  The opponent will then negotiate more aggressively or for more gain.

Rule 4    Keep concessions minimal.

This is also viewed as a sign of a weak case or position.  The opponent will aggressively pursue your concessions.

Rule 5    Support your own position first; then worry about your opponent’s.

Attacking the opponent’s case or position prior to establishing the strength of your own has a detrimental effect on the negotiation. You lose credibility and may find the opponent has a strong case. Establish the strength of your own position first.

Rule 6    Make sure you have a persuasive case.

Your case should be prepared such that it will persuade your opponent rather than just yourself.

Rule 7    Avoid threats or attacks.

The author suggests threats or attacks only as a last resort.  I cannot find a Scriptural mandate to attack another (personal or corporate defense but not offensive threats or attacks on another).

In contrast to competitive strategies, collaborative negotiation follows these rules:

Rule 1    Clearly identify specific issues you want resolved.

This communicates a willingness to negotiate with the other party.  It also relieves any anxieties the other side feels about what you may want.  It creates a mutual understanding of what must be accomplished by the negotiation.

Rule 2    Remain firm on goals but be flexible on methods.

This follows the old adage “there is more than one way to skin a cat.” It shows your willingness to work together to reach a mutually agreeable solution rather than a simple compromise.

Rule 3    Attack the issues not the people.

Hold firmly to the relationships you have with the other side.  Build and enhance your relationship.  Be hard only on the issues that are on the table.  This keeps the negotiation focused on solving the problems.

Power impacts the negotiation strategy in both competitive and collaborative approaches.  In competitive negotiation, each party tries to gain a high-power position.  This gives them the advantage in negotiation and may allow them to dictate the outcome.  In collaborative sessions, the best power strategy is to balance power among the various parties.  This creates an environment where each side is able to work freely and unencumbered toward a mutually satisfactory solution.
 

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

The most important thing I need to remember is to plan in advance a negotiation strategy.  I need to determine the best context to create in the negotiation.  The bigger the problem, the more time I need to spend planning for the negotiation.

I also need to keep in clear focus the guidelines for collaborative negotiating:  clearly identify specific issues I want resolved, remain firm on goals but flexible on methods, and attack the issues not the people.  These guidelines will help me remember that I do not own the one right approach to solving the problem.  It will remind me that properly facilitated, more people involved can consider more angles and develop more creative solutions.
 

G.  CHAPTER 7 - WHAT KIND OF CONFLICT HELP IS AVAILABLE

1.  What did I learn?

When engaged in conflict, it is difficult for any side to effectively manage a process of problem-solving, negotiation, and reconciliation.  The natural biases of each side, the offenses given, and the anger felt will all work to the detriment of the conflict management process.  This is where a third party can be very beneficial to all parties involved in helping them work together toward a solution.

The third party is one who enters a conflict from a position of neutrality with the purpose of helping the various parties work through the conflict cycle toward a successful resolution.  The third party should be a facilitator of the conflict management process on behalf of all sides.  Therefore, the third party must remain neutral throughout his involvement.  A neutral facilitator ensures the process will be used to bring the different parties together rather than further anger the participants with a bias toward any one party.  Neutrality gives each side hope for a fair outcome.

The third party may be retained in a number of different capacities depending on the type of conflict and the type of assistance needed.  Donohue and Kolt provide a helpful chart which delineates between four roles a third party may perform:

Conciliator - This is one who enters the conflict as a stabilizer of the relationships and process.  His is an informal, unstructured set of activities.  The context of the conciliator is generally a counseling session with one or more participants.  Conciliation is used when relationships are so broken down that the parties are unable to communicate effectively.  The conciliator focuses on reconciling feelings more so than problems.  This approach takes time but gives the parties an avenue back to the negotiating table.

Mediator - The mediator is one brought in to resolve a specific problem between the parties.  A specific process is normally used by the mediator to guide the parties toward solving their own problem. Mediation may be used in lieu of a formal court case for labor and salary disputes, divorce, or environmental disputes.  While mediation can be successful and less costly than other approaches, it is difficult if relationships are frayed or power is greatly imbalanced.

Arbitrator - An arbitrator is a third party brought in to decide an issue for the conflicting parties.  His is a formal process in regard to the presentation of cases by each side.  After hearing the cases, the arbitrator makes a decision.  The level to which the decision is binding is by mutual consent of the parties involved.  Relationships in this approach are not considered, only the facts.  It can be effective when a decision is needed quickly whether relationships are preserved or not.  When parties are headed toward court, this approach can be a last alternative before adjudication.

Adjudicator - This is one who acts in a role similar to the arbritator but with a legal or judicial basis for their work.  The decisions of the adjudicator are legally binding on the parties.  Judges in municipal, state, and federal courts are all examples of adjudicators.  The process of adjudication is a formal one prescribed by law.  The outcome of adjudication is a decision by the judge which ends the conflict, assuming both parties abide by the law.  Parties in conflict should try all other avenues before adjudication since the decision is binding, like it or not.

Several key points were made in this chapter regarding a community program of third-party intervention.  One is the claim that the best intervention programs provide all four of these roles.  The point is that since each conflict has unique characteristics, no one model will suffice.  It is equally important to understand what intervention services are available in your community and how they operate.  Finally, it is important to treat conflict with others from the perspective of a long-term relationship rather than a quick fix to ease the current pain.  People tend to terminate conflict quickly or avoid it intensely.  Neither approach is satisfactory in the context of the long-term relationship between individuals.  Conflict must be confronted quickly and logically.  This takes courage.  But the results of a controlled conflict management strategy can be fruitful relationships and effective interdependent processes.
 

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

From my perspective, I need to consider what role I need to play when intervening in conflicts at home, work, or in church.  In whatever conflict occurs, my relationship to the conflicting parties must be considered as well as my potential role as conciliator, mediator, arbitrator, or perhaps adjudicator.  I must also take into account what role the conflicting parties see me fulfilling.  One cannot effectively act in a role contrary to the expectations of the conflicting parties.  The actions will not be accepted and the outcome will not be a lasting agreement.  The role that I play must be appropriate for the type and level of conflict.
 

H.  CHAPTER 8 - CONFLICT MANAGEMENT FLOWCHART

1.  What did I learn?

Chapter eight provides a helpful process for deciding where to go next in a conflict situation.  A process is a series of organized activities intended to bring about a planned outcome or deliverable.  Donohue and Kolt provide a flowchart which shows each step, associated decision points, and the next step to take depending on the decision made.  Basically, the process can be broken into three parts:

1. The Decision to Confront:  In this initial stage, the basic decision is made whether or not to confront the conflict.  Key questions to answer are “Is there a significant problem?”, “Do you want to risk confrontation now?”, and “Is the potential for crisis under control?”
2. Planning to Confront:  This stage involves preparing to confront the conflict.  This includes assessing the type and level of conflict, understanding relationships and power among the various parties, and taking steps to balance power prior to any negotiation.  Key questions during this stage are “Can the crisis be relieved?”, “Are big face threats likely to occur?”, “Can the substantive issues be identified?”, and most crucial “Is power balanced between the parties?”
3. Negotiating Differences:  This final stage is the actual negotiation and settlement activities.  In this process, I find it interesting that if a collaborative context cannot be established, the only option is to seek third-party intervention.  This is the only question during this stage.  If an agreement is negotiated, specific details must be written up and signed to finalize the outcome.

2.  What do I need to remember , change, or put into practice?

A process flowchart for working through a conflict is particularly helpful to me.  It provides a structure to an otherwise chaotic series of events.  It also helps me to understand the “next steps” at any point along the way.  Since I have a tendency to jump right into negotiation, or worse to my solution to the conflict, the process will be of great benefit to me and those I attempt to help during a conflict.
 

End Notes

1. Donohue, William A.  and Kolt, Robert. Managing Interpersonal Conflict. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA. Copyright 1992.

Our Creator God loves you and wants you to know Him! If you would like to contact this ministry for further information or questions, please send your e-mail to:
Email: ministryrequest1@WordTruth.Com
Web Site: WordTruth.Com

Copyright 6/18/2001, Randy Lariscy.