Conflicts emerge when a person believes that someone else is interfering with the pursuit of a desired goal. Ideally, disputants should negotiate a mutually agreeable compromise; typically, however, they go underground in attempting to pursue their goals and satisfy their needs. The result is a situation in which defeating the adversary and advancing one's position take precedence over attaining organizational goals.
A prime reason conflicts are mismanaged or pushed underground is anger. Anger is taboo in the modern business world: It is not businesslike or professional. It is considered "losing one's cool" or being petty. Consequently, airing conflicts openly and directly is avoided for fear of looking bad, incompetent, insecure, petty, or inappropriate. Fear of anger and conflict seems to be prevalent throughout society, and as a result few people have had opportunities to develop the skills necessary to negotiate a realistic settlement of differences. Manipulations, subtle sabotage, and mocking insults become the means of solving the problem and getting what we want.
For managers who must resolve conflicts among subordinates, the problem can be even more complex. Often unable to effectively resolve their own conflicts, they must orchestrate resolution of other people's conflicts. Fortunately, the skills needed to manage conflicts can be learned. The approach presented in this chapter is one of information gathering and mediating. Because it is a behavioral approach, its emphasis is on negotiating specific changes in disputants' behavior.
Managers must first find out what the problem is before they can take any action toward resolution. To accomplish this, the manager will typically meet with disputants one at a time to discuss the problem. This rationale is sound, but there are many hidden pitfalls in the procedure. Here is one such case.
Since Collin joined the staff of a small urban planning office two years ago, George, the director of the office, felt as if he were under constant scrutiny. Collin questioned his decisions, criticized the way he ran the office, and corrected his statements. George saw Collin as "just a punk kid with an authority problem." He was on the verge of firing Collin when Collin brought in an important federal grant.
George was responsible for appointing the director of this project, and although he felt he had no choice but to select Collin, he took the opportunity to rein Collin in by requiring the formal appointment procedure, so that Collin had to go through the board interview and evaluation. George also had a number of serious talks with Collin about his work and their relationship. Afterward Collin stopped "needling" him but continued to get into conflicts with others in the office. Just the other day Collin and Stacy, the administrative assistant, had a terrible fight over a typewriter. George didn't know exactly what had happened, but he knew he had to restore peace in the office. He talked to Stacy and then called Collin in. The meeting with Collin went like this:
Rather than resolving the conflict between Collin and Stacy, George's efforts aggravated his shaky relationship with Collin, and laid the foundation for further conflict between Collin and Stacy. This happened because George violated several important principles of effective conflict management.
Principles for Gathering Information about the Conflict
Get All the Information First
Common sense tells us that we need to know what the problem is before we can solve it. In the example, George attempted to solve the problem before getting all the information. He didn't know about the agreement between Collin and Stacy and that the compromise was intended to save money. It would be easy for Collin to feel that George had already made a decision about the typewriter before their conversation took place. Not only is it difficult to make a good decision with incomplete information, but when one or both disputants feel that they haven't been able to tell their story, it is unlikely that the disputants will conscientiously implement any plan. Therefore, before considering any solutions, the first principle is to find out from all disputants the nature and scope of the problem.
There are two potential pitfalls: talking too much and asking leading questions. As in all interviews, minimize the amount of time you talk. When talking or asking questions, you are not gathering information about the conflict. Use effective interview techniques to draw out each disputant's story. Leading questions present a serious problem: Avoid questions that imply the answer you desire. Even more important is avoiding questions that lead disputants into areas that you feel are potential problems. The goal of the conflict interview is to find out how each disputant sees the problem. By asking leading questions, you may bring up areas that the disputants did not feel were problems.
By asking about other situations, the manager suggested problems. Typically, disputants want to build their cases against one another. Leading questions open up new problems for disputants to bring into the conflict. Avoid adding fuel to the problem; the disputants know what is bothering them. Even if you have observed or sensed conflict between them in other areas, avoid asking about it.
Simply find out how each sees the conflict today.
Remain Impartial
Avoid jumping to conclusions: Everyone knows that a mediator must be objective and neutral. On the face of it, this seems simple. Often, however, without realizing it you may draw unwarranted conclusions and communicate your bias. Some disputants will fear your reactions to their story; others will doubt that they have a chance for a satisfactory resolution of the problem. When this is the case, they will be sensitive to subtleties in your speech and behavior. Casual remarks on your part could lead one or both disputants to feel cornered. When a disputant feels backed into a corner by both you and an adversary, you can expect a defensive reaction such as withdrawal, hostility, or guardedness. Clearly, you want to avoid this.
Drawing conclusions seems to be a natural tendency. Most people find uncertainty unsettling, and to escape it they will draw conclusions from vague and incomplete information. In an employment interview, this is a serious problem because it often leads to hiring the wrong person. In a conflict interview, leaping to conclusions destroys impartiality. This problem can be reduced by using effective interview techniques to get specific information. Use probes, repeats, and checkouts to find out exactly what happened. The more you get down to specific behaviors, the better. What did the person do? What did the person say? When and where did it occur? By focusing on the antagonizing behaviors, you minimize drawing erroneous conclusions.
For example, suppose one disputant says, "When I came in this morning, Bill jumped me." Did Bill confront the disputant with a grievance? Did Bill make an insulting remark? Or did he startle the disputant with a practical joke? Even though drawing out information about specific behaviors may at times be tedious, it is important to do so. Probing specifics and checking out your understanding communicates that you want to understand the employee's point of view. This will reduce suspicion and aid in enlisting the disputants’ cooperation in problem solving. Finally, information about specific offensive behavior lays the groundwork for mediating an action plan for behavior change.
Accept each disputant’s view: Remember that the goal of the interview is to find out each disputant's perception of the problem. Judging or evaluating a disputant's story destroys impartiality and makes it difficult to accomplish this goal. When you question or evaluate disputants’ stories on the spot, you are negating their perceptions. This is an important point and one that many managers have difficulty accepting. Some feel the necessity to "get to the truth of the matter" to determine the correct version of the problem. But this approach can have several pitfalls. When people feel judged, they become defensive and edit out parts that may make them look bad and exaggerate aspects that they think will be looked on favorably. Likewise, feeling judged can set off a host of emotions: anxiety, suspicion, hostility, fear, and anger. Obviously the person doing the judging cannot remain impartial for long, because judging requires taking a stand and evaluating each story from the perspective of that stand. Obviously, a judgmental climate is not conducive to finding out how each disputant sees the conflict.
Another more subtle problem with judging is that it tends to shift responsibility for resolving the conflict from the disputants to you. If you assume this responsibility, you will have made your job more difficult and reduced the chances that the conflict will be resolved. Disputants will attempt to get you to assume responsibility. They usually prefer to go to you as the all-knowing monarch who will review the facts and issue an edict. When the decision comes out in their favor, they gloat over their adversary's loss. If they don't like your decision, they will try to prove you incompetent by destroying your attempts at resolution. In either case, future conflict is likely because blame for the failure of the resolution attempt can be placed on you.
The key word here is acceptance. Accept each disputant's statement of the problem. You may want to question for clarification and specific information, but don't question the validity of the disputant's perceptions. It is futile and counterproductive to attempt to arrive at "reality" or the "truth." For example, when questioning several eye witnesses, police frequently get dramatically different descriptions of the suspect or of the getaway car. One witness may report that the car was blue; another, that it was green. If discrepancies of this magnitude can occur when several people have observed the same objective event, you can imagine the range of differences possible when people are describing their perceptions of an interaction in which they have considerable emotional investment. One person will interpret a look as sneering, another will see it as disapproving, and a third may view it as joking. Avoid becoming a detective who attempts to determine which story is right. Obviously the disputants' stories will differ in many places. If there were no differences, there would probably be no conflict. It is not necessary to identify reality to resolve the conflict, but it is necessary for each disputant to hear how the other sees the problem. Sometimes this alone is sufficient to resolve the problem.
Although this is somewhat rare, there are times when the entire conflict is grounded in a misunderstanding. When that misunderstanding is rectified, the conflict disappears.
The problem most managers face is the confusion between acceptance and agreement. Because you accept a person's perception of a situation does not mean that you personally agree with that perception; in fact, you may totally disagree. But you should not say this to either disputant-to do so would destroy your position of impartiality. It is important to remember that even when a disputant is completely wrong in his or her perception of the conflict, subjectively that person is right. People make decisions and act upon their perceptions of the world-it is their personal reality. Therefore even though their statements and views may seem exaggerated or absurd to you, they are real to the disputants, because that is the way they see things, and this information forms the basis of their actions. And most people are inclined to believe their own perceptions rather than someone else's arguments. In short, the goal of the conflict interview is to find out how each disputant sees the problem. This is best done by remaining impartial and accepting each disputant's version. Disagreeing, judging, and criticizing should be avoided. Likewise, interpreting, analyzing, and diagnosing should be avoided, since they also indicate disagreement with the disputant's view.
The manager's interpretation suggests that Mary's view of the problem is inaccurate.
On the other hand, agreeing with either disputant should also be avoided. When you agree with one, you implicitly disagree with the other. Disputants always attempt to get you to agree with them-this is a way of pulling you over to their side.
Avoid this trap: If you fall into it, you'll be pulled into the conflict. By the same token avoid reassuring, sympathizing, consoling, or sup porting either disputant. As well-meaning as your actions may be, they will cause the other disputant to interpret them as being a vote of confidence for his or her adversary's position.
Don't Make Suggestions
As well as attempting to get you to agree and to commiserate with them, disputants will often ask for suggestions. Always avoid giving suggestions, because as soon as you offer a suggestion, you lose control of the interview: You have been sidetracked from getting information into giving information, and you have assumed responsibility for solving the problem. During the interview, do nothing but gather information on how each disputant sees the problem. When disputants request suggestions or push you for agreement, don't respond; ignore the request and proceed with the interview. Don't worry about being polite-this is not a social situation. At all times keep sight of your objective and maintain control.
Sum Up Often
The sum-up technique is one of the most valuable tools in the conflict interview. It tells you when the interview with the first disputant is complete and when to move on to interviewing the second disputant. When you think you have the first disputant's complete story, summarize and ask, "Is there anything else?" A "no" response is your signal to move on to the next disputant. If the answer is "yes," continue with the interview.
After you have completed interviews with all disputants, summarize each disputant's story again before going on to the mediation phase. It may seem redundant to sum up each story so many times, but the repetitiveness will help you in the long run. First, it is an insurance against cutting disputants off prematurely. When they haven't told their entire story, they are more likely to interrupt when others are speaking. Things can become confusing when you find yourself going back and forth between disputants and getting only pieces of stories each time. In short, the sum-up technique helps you to keep things orderly and under control. In addition, disputants get to hear their stories in an encapsulated form. This sets the stage for you to move into mediation.
By conducting the interview in this fashion, George sidestepped the trouble spots he had encountered before. Now it becomes apparent that bringing disputants together for the interview sets the stage for problem solving. With the conflict stated as it was in the final sum-up, George stands a good chance of facilitating a successful negotiation between Collin and Stacy.
Decision Point
At the end of the interview you must make a decision on the basis of the information you have gathered. In general, you have six broad decision categories. You might decide to reprimand or in some cases terminate one or both disputants; recommend that one or both be transferred; think things over and issue a directive for resolving the problem; and in some rare cases decide to do absolutely nothing. I say in rare cases because if the conflict has gotten to the point of a formal interview, some decisive action usually is in order.
The final option is to mediate an action plan. Since you have already succeeded in getting the disputants to state their problem, the next step seems obvious: Guide them in resolving their conflict. Don't jump to conclusions about the insolubility of a conflict; disputants often arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, perhaps one that you may never have considered. After all, barring termination or transfer, they must continue to interact. The fact that you are conducting the mediation implicitly communicates to them that you expect them to arrive at some compromise. It is an effort well worth the time it takes.
