More Than Two Disputants
The procedure for resolving conflicts remains the same no matter how many disputants are involved. Control is the major difficulty. As the number of disputants increases, loss of control is more likely and reestablishing control once it has been lost is more difficult. Attention to the seating arrangement is important. Place yourself in a position where you can move rapidly between any two disputants. Keep the most hostile disputants apart and the less hostile disputants in the middle. Be firm in laying ground rules and in adhering to them.
Systematically interview each disputant one at a time: Even when two claim to have the same story, interview each one. Before moving into mediation, sum up all the stories. Mediation is conducted in the same manner as with two disputants. Elicit suggestions from each one and check out each suggestion with all disputants.
When Mediation Fails
In a high percentage of office conflicts, a resolution is possible. All that is required is conscientious negotiation between the disputing parties. On the other hand, it would be naive to think that all conflicts will be resolved. Situational factors, personal sensitivities, and stubbornness will at times defeat your best efforts. When this happens, you must fall back on one of the other decision tactics open to you.
Occasionally you can rid yourself of the problem entirely by terminating, transferring, or referring one or both disputants elsewhere. More frequently, however, you are stuck with choosing between doing nothing and issuing a directive. Issuing a directive is a control strategy-that is, if the directive is followed, the conflict may continue to exist, but its expression will be controlled. As with all behavioral sequences, conflicts have three intervention points: events that trigger the conflict (antecedents), the conflict behaviors themselves, and the consequences of the conflict. Office arguments can be controlled by altering any one of these events.
Remove conflict triggers: To use this strategy, you must understand which factors trigger the conflict and which factors inhibit it. This is best done through careful observation and by interviewing disputants as to what events immediately precede an outburst. When the factors have been isolated, issue a directive aimed at preventing or eliminating the occurrence of these triggers. Sometimes this will involve creating a buffer between conflicting parties. For example, Sally felt that Beth's requests for clerical services were condescending. After several attempts at resolution failed, their manager, Joe, issued a directive that all requests for Sally's services go through him. This procedure stopped Sally and Beth from interacting directly and thus, by removing the triggering event, stopped expression of the conflict, Control conflict behaviors. In this strategy, the way in which the conflict is expressed is controlled. In essence, your directive specifies "fair fight" tactics. Harriet and Randy, two floor supervisors, were constantly bickering in front of subordinates over minute interpretations of departmental procedures. The manager felt that this con fused employees and undermined Harriet and Randy's authority.
The conflict was controlled by imposing limitations on where and when they could argue. They had to leave the floor and discuss the disputed issue in one of the closed offices. Examples of other fair-fight tactics include injunctions against two-on-one fights, personal attacks ("Maybe if you were doing a better job at home, you wouldn't be such a bear at work!"), or attacks through a third person ("Bill says you’ve reached your level of incompetence"). In short, your directive states when, where, and how disputants are permitted to fight. This is similar to the street gangs who agree to fight it out in the boxing ring, or (on an international level) to nations who agree to eschew the use of nuclear weapons.
Alter the consequences of a conflict. Often there are hidden secondary gains in a conflict. For example, one disputant may receive a lot of sympathy ("Gee, Ralph that was awful. Let's go to lunch and talk about it. I know just how you feel") or praise ("Boy, I've got to hand it to you-you sure can come across when the chips are down"). You yourself may inadvertently be giving positive reinforcement that helps maintain the conflict. Once again, careful observation of events occurring after the conflict is necessary to identify possible consequences. As a rule of thumb, strive to eliminate the positive consequences and substitute a neutral or negative one. If you notice that one disputant runs to you for sympathy, employ the extinction process by withholding that sympathy-change the subject. Often, however, it is the response of co-workers that feeds the conflict. You might experiment with a procedure whereby all employees will be reinforced for a reduction in conflicts. For example, if a conflict-free week resulted in everyone's being able to leave an hour earlier on Friday, co-workers would be less likely to respond positively to conflict behavior.
Managing Conflicts When You Are a Disputant
A different approach to managing conflicts is needed when you are involved personally. The most practical and effective method I have encountered is the assertive negotiation technique developed by Sharon Bower. The first step is to prepare a DESC script. The DESC message is a behavioral statement of the problem as you see it, how you feel about it, what change you desire, and what you plan to do if change does not occur.
D Describe the problem behavior
E Express your feelings or thoughts, or both.
S Specify the behavior change you desire (If-statement)
C State consequences of change and no change (Then-statement)
Preparation of the DESC is the step that requires the most thought. Here the problem is translated into observable behaviors.
DESC guides you in thinking through the problem, your reaction to it, your needs, and the options open to you. DESC should be written in verbatim form-that is, write down the exact words you intend to say when you meet your adversary. This will help you pinpoint and remove provocative or passive language. The guidelines for using authoritative language are helpful in writing an assertive script. Practice your completed script several times. A tape recorder and mirror are helpful practice aids. Finally, meet with your adversary and deliver your script.
Presenting the conflict to your adversary with a DESC script sets the stage to begin negotiating a resolution. Often the other disputant will not accept your suggested resolution plan in to. If it is rejected, ask, "What do you suggest?" Then use effective interviewing techniques (probes, repeats, checkouts, and sum-ups) to clarify exactly what behavior changes the other disputant suggests will resolve the problem. A resolution plan should be an if-then statement. You and your adversary should both know what to do and what to expect. Write your agreement down, and each of you sign it. It is a good idea to schedule a follow-up meeting to discuss the progress of your plan.
DESC scripts work equally well with subordinates, peers, superiors, and clients. The direct problem statement and negotiation process tend to balance the power between yourself and the adversary.
Resolving conflicts with others in this way conveys respect and cooperation. DESC scripts help open communication channels. Thus, general working relationships tend to improve. As you gain confidence, you can negotiate for change (yours and theirs) before problems get to the conflict stage.
Effectively managed conflicts can create profound changes in employee relations. By shifting the responsibility for change to the persons involved in the conflict, you the manager become a successful mediator, eliciting employee participation and cooperation.
