CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANISATION

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANISATION

CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION

TO

CONFLICT

~ 1 ~


INTRODUCTION

As the pace of the life and business continues to accelerate, the opportunities for conflict multiply. Yet, the ability to work well with others is the single greatest determinant of success in the 21st century. Therefore, learning to disarm and defuse confrontational situations and people is essential. One cannot work effectively with others with clenched fists.

Recent research has found that managers spend approximately 20 percent of their time dealing with conflicts either as participants or as mediators. This is worrisome because conflict has considerable influence on employee behavior, performance and satisfaction. It also affects an organization’s effectiveness. It is for this reason that the study of conflicts has assumed increasing importance in the field of organizational behavior.

Conflict Management

Conflict is a form of disagreement that arises between two or more persons. In organizations, there are many occasions where a conflict arises but they can be overcome through full understanding and positive attitude. The state of conflict arises due to difference of opinions, emotional disturbance, distrust, dislikes, fear

or resentment. There are two types of conflicts and they are functional (+) and

dysfunctional (-). Functional conflicts are those which results in the improvement of group’s performance. Dysfunctional conflicts are those that obstruct and decreases group’s performance. Conflicts can have positive as well as negative

~ 2 ~


effects, depending upon the situation and individuals. In organizations there are three types of conflicts and they are task conflicts, relationship conflicts and process conflict. In organizational life, there are three levels of conflicts and they are intra-personal conflict, interpersonal conflict and intergroup and organizational conflict.

The organizational work involves communication and interpersonal relations inside as well as outside of the organization. There are various occasions when there are differences and disagreements due to difference in the opinions and views. To overcome these barriers there is a need to have healthy environment which is full of understanding and conflict free.

It is very difficult to imagine a conflict free world and a conflict free organization as every individual has a unique behavior, personality and ideas. Perception, attitudes and motivation varies from a person to person. These factors led to the conflicts which we encounter from time to time everywhere at home or at workplace. Conflict is a natural disagreement arising between two or more persons or individuals due to their incompatible goals, believes, behavior which prevents them from their goal achievement. It is a process in which one group or individual perceives that their interests are being opposed or are affecting the other parties negatively. At times, conflict leads to serious problems in an organization. But at the same time it can create positive results also. An absence of conflict can lead to apathy and lethargy as it helps in stimulating new ideas, providing healthy competitions and energizing behavior of an individual in an organization. Therefore, it is very important for an organization to manage the conflict and formulate various strategies to resolve the conflicts arising between the individuals in an organization.

The effect of these conflicts can be positive, neutral or negative, depending upon the situation and individuals due to which the conflicts have been arise. Every organization has three types of conflicts such as task conflicts, relationship conflict and process conflict. Task conflicts deals with content and goals, relationship conflicts are focused on interpersonal relations and process conflicts are related to the process of doing the work. Out of these relationship conflicts are termed as

~ 3 ~


dysfunctional, as it causes difference of opinion, ego clashes and fights which is causing an unnecessary and untimely blockage of work in an organization.

The inter-group conflicts lead to many changes within the group and they increase the group cohesiveness, task orientation of the group, leadership turning more directive, definiteness of organizational structure and stressing of group unity. There are many benefits of inter group conflicts as the conflict clarifies the real issue, increases innovation, produces cohesiveness within the group, serves as catharsis. The conflict solution helps in solidifying intergroup relationships.

Definitions and Assumptions about Conflict

We define conflict as a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Within this simple definition there are several important understandings that emerge:

Disagreement - Generally, we are aware there is some level of difference in the positions of the two (or more) parties involved in the conflict. But the true disagreement versus the perceived disagreement may be quite different from one another. In fact, conflict tends to be accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement considerably. If we can understand the true areas of disagreement, this will help us solve the right problems and manage the true needs of the parties.

Parties involved - There are often disparities in our sense of who is involved in the conflict. Sometimes, people are surprised to learn they are a party to the conflict, while other times we are shocked to learn we are not included in the disagreement. On many occasions, people who are seen as part of the social system (e.g., work team, family and company) are influenced to participate in the dispute, whether they would personally define the situation in that way or not. In the above example, people very readily "take sides" based upon current perceptions of the issues, past issues and relationships, roles within the organization, and other factors. The parties involved can become an elusive concept to define.

~ 4 ~


Perceived threat - People respond to the perceived threat, rather than the true threat, facing them. Thus, while perception doesn't become reality per se, people's behaviors, feelings and ongoing responses become modified by that evolving sense of the threat they confront. If we can work to understand the true threat (issues) and develop strategies (solutions) that manage it (agreement), we are acting constructively to manage the conflict.

Needs, interests or concerns - There is a tendency to narrowly define "the problem" as one of substance, task, and near-term viability. However, workplace conflicts tend to be far more complex than that, for they involve ongoing relationships with complex, emotional components. Simply stated, there are always procedural needs and psychological needs to be addressed within the conflict, in addition to the substantive needs that are generally presented. And the durability of the interests and concerns of the parties transcends the immediate presenting situation. Any efforts to resolve conflicts effectively must take these points into account.

So, is it still a simple definition of conflict? We think so, but we must respect that within its elegant simplicity lies a complex set of issues to address. Therefore, it is not surprising that satisfactory resolution of most conflicts can prove so challenging and time consuming to address.

Conflicts occur when people (or other parties) perceive that, as a consequence of a disagreement, there is a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Although conflict is a normal part of organization life, providing numerous opportunities for growth through improved understanding and insight, there is a tendency to view conflict as a negative experience caused by abnormally difficult circumstances. Disputants tend to perceive limited options and finite resources available in seeking solutions, rather than multiple possibilities that may exist 'outside the box' in which we are problem-solving.

A few points are worth reiterating before proceeding:

I. A conflict is more than a mere disagreement - it is a situation in which people perceive a threat (physical, emotional, power, status, etc.) to their

~ 5 ~


well-being. As such, it is a meaningful experience in people's lives, not to be shrugged off by a mere, "it will pass…"

II. Participants in conflicts tend to respond on the basis of their perceptions of the situation, rather than an objective review of it. As such, people filter their perceptions (and reactions) through their values, culture, beliefs, information, experience, gender, and other variables. Conflict responses are both filled with ideas and feelings that can be very strong and powerful guides to our sense of possible solutions.

III. As in any problem, conflicts contain substantive, procedural, and psychological dimensions to be negotiated. In order to best understand the threat perceived by those engaged in a conflict, we need to consider all of these dimensions.

IV. Conflicts are normal experiences within the work environment. They are also, to a large degree, predictable and expectable situations that naturally arise as we go about managing complex and stressful projects in which we are significantly invested. As such, if we develop procedures for identifying conflicts likely to arise, as well as systems through which we can constructively manage conflicts, we may be able to discover new opportunities to transform conflict into a productive learning experience.

Creative problem-solving strategies are essential to positive approaches to conflict management. We need to transform the situation from one in which it is 'my way or the highway' into one in which we entertain new possibilities that have been otherwise elusive.

SOURCES OF CONFLICT

According to both Daft and Terry, several factors may create organizational conflict. They are as follows:

1. Scarce Resources. Resources may include money, supplies, people, or information. Often, organizational units are in competition for scarce or declining resources. This creates a situation where conflict is inevitable.

~ 6 ~


2. Jurisdictional Ambiguities. Conflicts may also surface when job boundaries and task responsibilities are unclear. Individuals may disagree about who has the responsibility for tasks and resources.

3. Personality Clashes. A personality conflict emerges when two people simply do not get along or do not view things similarly. Personality tensions are caused by differences in personality, attitudes, values, and beliefs.

4. Power and Status Differences. Power and status conflict may occur when one individual has questionable influence over another. People might engage in conflict to increase their power or status in an organization.

5. Goal Differences. Conflict may occur because people are pursuing different goals. Goal conflicts in individual work units are a natural part of any organization.

~ 7 ~


CHAPTER 2LEVELS

OF

CONFLICT

IN ORGANIZATION

~ 8 ~


(1) Intrapersonal conflict in goals and values of patients with unipolar depression.

Fig.1 Intrapersonal conflict

BACKGROUND: Although increased conflicts between attitudes and beliefs

about certain goals or values are often discussed as important factors in depression,

there are only few empirical studies investigating these relations among patients

with depressive disorders.

METHODS: In the present study, we used the Intrapersonal Conflict Test to

assess cognitive inconsistencies in goals or values. A total of 53 in patients with

unipolar depression and 24 non-depressed controls (inpatients of an internal and a

surgery ward) participated in the study. In addition to the Intrapersonal Conflict

Test, patients completed the Beck Depression Inventory, the Dysfunctional

~ 9 ~


Attitude Scale, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems as well as the Problem

Solving Inventory.

RESULTS: Compared with controls, patients with depressive disorders showed

significantly higher scores for global inconsistencies, inconsistencies within

(2) Interpersonal Conflict and Effective Communication

Conflict between people is a fact of life – and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, a relationship with frequent conflict may be healthier than one with no observable conflict. Conflicts occur at all levels of interaction – at work, among friends, within families and between relationship partners. When conflict occurs, the relationship may be weakened or strengthened. Thus, conflict is a critical event in the course of a relationship. Conflict can cause resentment, hostility and perhaps the ending of the relationship. If it is handled well, however, conflict can be productive – leading to deeper understanding, mutual respect and closeness. Whether a relationship is healthy or unhealthy depend not so much on the number of conflicts between participants, but on how the conflicts are resolved.

Sometimes people shy away from conflict, and the reasons for this are numerous. They may, for example, feel that their underlying anger may go out of control if they open the door to conflict. Thus, they may see conflict as an all-or-nothing situation (either they avoid it altogether or they end up in an all-out combative mode, regardless of the real severity of the conflict). Or they may find it difficult to face conflict because they feel inadequate in general or in the particular relationship. They may have difficulty in positively asserting their views and feelings. Children who grow up surrounded by destructive conflict may, as adults, determine never to participate in discord. In this situation, the person may never have learned that there are effective, adaptive ways to communicate in the face of conflict.

People adopt a number of different styles in facing conflict. First, it is very common to see a person avoid or deny the existence of conflict. Unfortunately, in this case, the conflict often lingers in the background during interaction between the participants and creates the potential for further tension and even more conflict. A second response style is that of one person getting mad and blaming the other person. This occurs when a person mistakenly equates conflict with anger. This stance does nothing to resolve the conflict and in fact only serves to increase the degree of friction between the two participants by amplifying defensiveness. A

~ 10 ~


third way which some people use to resolve conflict is by using power and influence to win at the other’s expense. They welcome conflict because it allows their competitive impulses to emerge, but they fail to understand that the conflict is not really resolved since the “loser” will continue to harbor resentment. Similarly, some people appear to compromise in resolving the conflict, but they subtly manipulate the other person in the process, and this, again, perpetuates the conflict between the two parties and compromises the trust between them. There are better ways to handle interpersonal conflict.

2. (I) Healthy approaches to conflict resolution

Conflicts run all the way from minor, unimportant differences to disputes which can threaten the existence of a relationship. Conflicts with a loved one or a long-term friend are, of course, different from negotiating with someone who does not care about your needs, like a stranger or a salesperson. However, there is an underlying principle that underscores all successful conflict resolution. That is, both parties must view their conflict as a problem to be solved mutually so that both parties have the feeling of winning – or at least finding a solution which is acceptable to both. Each person must participate actively in the resolution and make an effort and commitment to find answers which are as fair as possible to both. This is an easy principle to understand, but it is often difficult to put into practice.

We may get so caught up with our own immediate interests that we damage our relationships. If we disregard or minimize the position of the other person, if fear and power are used to win, or if we always have to get our own way, the other person will feel hurt and the relationship may be wounded. Similarly, if we always surrender just to avoid conflict, we give the message to the other person that it is acceptable to act self-serving at our expense and insensitive to our needs. Our feeling of self-worth suffers, resentment festers, and we feel poisoned in the relationship. Instead, it is healthier if both parties can remain open, honest, assertive and respectful of the other position. Mutual trust and respect, as well as a positive, constructive attitude, are fundamental necessities in relationships that matter.

2. (ii) Preventing conflict

Most people have no interest in creating conflict with others. Most of us know enough about human behavior to distinguish between healthy communication and the words or actions that contribute to rocky relationships. It is in our interest to

~ 11 ~


maintain relations which are smooth, flexible, and mutually enhancing. The problem occurs when we fail to use cooperative approaches consistently in our dealing with others. We seldom create conflict intentionally. We do it because we may not be aware of how our own behavior contributes to interpersonal problems. Sometimes we forget, or we are frustrated and annoyed, and sometimes we just have a bad day. At times we feel so exasperated that we focus on our own needs at the expense of others’. And then we find ourselves in conflict.

To prevent conflict from happening in the first place, it is important to identify the ways in which we contribute to the disagreement. One way of doing this is to identify a specific, recent conflicted situation, recall what you said, and then think specifically about how you could have used more effective language. Think about ways in which your communication could have set a more trustful tone or reduced defensiveness. Then, once you have identified your part in the conflict, such as blaming, practice working on that particular behavior for a day or a week. At the end of the time period, evaluate your progress. Did you succeed? In what situations did you not succeed? (While it may be the other person who created the conflict, you are the other half of the interaction and it is your own response that you have control over and can change.)

2. (iii) Using effective communication techniques to reduce conflict

Once you find yourself in a conflicted situation with someone else, it is important to reduce the emotional charge from the situation so that you and the other person can deal with your differences on a rational level in resolving the conflict.

a) The Defusing Technique: The other person might be angry and may come to the situation armed with a number of arguments describing how you are to blame for his or her unhappiness. Your goal is to address the other’s anger – and you do this by simply agreeing with the person. When you find some truth in the other point of view, it is difficult for the other person to maintain anger. For example, “I know that I said I would call you last night. You are absolutely right. I wish I could be more responsible sometimes.” The accusation might be completely unreasonable from your viewpoint, but there is always some truth in what the other person says. At the very least, we need to acknowledge that individuals have different ways of seeing things. This does not mean that we have to compromise our own basic principles. We simply validate the other’s stance so that we can move on to a healthier resolution of the conflict. This may be hard to do in a volatile situation, but a

~ 12 ~


sign of individual strength and integrity is the ability to postpone our immediate reactions in order to achieve positive goals. Sometimes we have to “lose” in order, ultimately, to “win.”

b) Exploration: Ask gentle, probing questions about what the other person is thinking and feeling. Encourage the other to talk fully about what is on his or her mind. For example, “Are there any other thoughts that you need to share with me?”

c) Using “I” Statements: Take responsibility for your own thoughts rather than attributing motives to the other person. This decreases the chance that the other person will become defensive. For example, “I feel pretty upset that this thing has come between us.” This statement is much more effective than saying, “You have made me feel very upset.”

2. (IV) A rational way of resolving conflicts

Here is a model of BENCHMARKING in interpersonal conflicts.

It refers to the process of identifying the best player in the industry and seeting up the objectives and implementing the plans to acquire similar standards as of the best player in the industry. It helps the company to make continuous improvement in their operation and helps to achieve desired goals and objectives. Following steps are involved in the benchmarking process.

a) Identify the Problem. Have a discussion to understand both sides of the problem. The goal at this initial stage is to say what you want and to listen to what the other person wants. Define the things that you both agree on, as well as the ideas that have caused the disagreement. It is important to listen actively to what the other is saying, use “I” statements and avoid blame.

b) Come Up With Several Possible Solutions. This is the brainstorming phase. Drawing on the points that you both agree on and your shared goals generate a list of as many ideas as you can for solving the problem, regardless of how feasible they might be. Aim toward quantity of ideas rather than quality during this phase, and let creativity be your guide.

c) Evaluate These Alternative Solutions. Now go through the list of alternative solutions to the problem, one by one. Consider the pros and cons of the remaining solutions until the list is narrowed down to one or two of the best ways of handling the problem. It is important for each person to be

~ 13 ~


honest in this phase. The solutions might not be ideal for either person and may involve compromise.

d) Decide on the Best Solution. Select the solution that seems mutually acceptable, even if it is not perfect for either party. As long as it seems fair and there is a mutual commitment to work with the decision, the conflict has a chance for resolution.

(3) Intergroup Conflict in the Workplace

Conflict within an organization: Intergroup Conflict. Some generalized causes of conflict have been identified. The interdependence of groups and individuals within the organization, political indeterminism, and group/organizational diversity have been identified as causes of intergroup conflict

Webster's Dictionary defines a group as "a number of persons near, placed, or classified together."Others define a group as a "social unit that consists of a number of individuals who, at a given time, have role and status relationships with one another, stabilized in some degree and who possess a set of values or norms regulating the attitude and behavior of individual members, at least in matters of consequence to them."

~ 14 ~


Fig. 2 Intergroup conflict

Intergroup relations between two or more groups and their respective members are often necessary to complete the work required to operate a business. Many times, groups inter-relate to accomplish the organization's goals and objectives, and conflict can occur. Some conflict, called functional conflict, is considered positive, because it enhances performance and identifies weaknesses. Dysfunctional conflict, however, is confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization or hinders attainment of goals or objectives.

3. (I) Causes of Intergroup Conflict

Fig. 3 Cause of intergroup conflict

One of the most prominent reasons for intergroup conflict is simply the nature of the group. Other reasons may be work interdependence, goal variances, differences in perceptions, and the increased demand for specialists. Also, individual members of a group often play a role in the initiation of group conflict. Any given group embodies various qualities, values, or unique traits that are created, followed, and even defended. These clans can then distinguish "us" from "them." Members who violate important aspects of the group, and especially outsiders, who offend these

~ 15 ~


ideals in some way, normally receive some type of corrective or defensive response. Relationships between groups often reflect the opinions they hold of each other's characteristics. When groups share some interests and their directions seem parallel, each group may view the other positively; however, if the activities and goals of groups differ, they may view each other in a negative manner. When trying to prevent or correct intergroup conflict, it is important to consider the history of relations between the groups in conflict. History will repeat itself if left to its own devices.

Limited resources and reward structures can foster intergroup conflict by making the differences in group goals more apparent. Differences in perceptions among groups regarding time and status, when coupled with different group goals, can also create conflict. Reorganization of the workplace and integration of services and facilities can be stressful to some and create negative conflict. Some individuals within the group have inherent traits or social histories that impact intergroup conflict, but problems within intergroup relations are not usually caused by the deviate behavior of a few individuals.

3. (ii) Consequences of Intergroup Conflict

Intergroup conflict causes changes to occur, both within the groups in conflict and between them. Within the groups, members will usually overlook individual differences in an effort to unite against the other side, and with this concerted effort the focus is on the task. The group can become more efficient and effective at what they do, and members can become more loyal, closely following group norms. Problems can occur, however, when the group loses focus of the organization's goals and becomes closed off from other groups. Haughtiness and isolation quickly lead to decreased communication. Communication is the key between groups in reciprocal interdependence, and these have the highest negative consequences for lack of effective communication. Miscommunication can be the death knell of any organization.

~ 16 ~


3) Solutions to Intergroup Conflict

~ 17 ~


There are numerous choices available to circumvent conflict, to keep it from becoming damaging, and to resolve conflict that is more serious. These include simple avoidance where possible, problem solving, changing certain variables in the workplace, and in-house Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs. Any resolution method should depend on why the conflict occurred, the seriousness of the conflict, and the type. A face-to-face meeting, as in problem solving, can be very effective in conflicts of misunderstanding or language barriers. The groups can discuss issues and relevant information, with or without a facilitator, to reach resolution.

Where groups have differing goals, it may be prudent to establish some type of goal that can only be reached when the conflicting groups work together. A super ordinate goal not only helps alleviate conflict, it focuses more on performance, which is what the organization needs to survive. A downside to this option is the identification of a common enemy of the conflicting groups, who must come together to prevail. Eventually, the solidarity crumbles and groups begin to again turn against each other.

Another stopgap solution to conflict is simply avoiding it. Although this does not resolve the problem, it can help get a group through a period of time, in which those involved may become more objective, or a greater, more immediate goal would have been met. Along those lines, another solution is smoothing the groups by focusing on common interests and de-emphasizing the differences between them. This approach is especially effective on relatively simple conflicts and is viewed as a short-term remedy.

Yet another quick fix is the authoritative command, where groups, who cannot satisfactorily resolve their conflict, are commanded by management. This response does not usually deal with the underlying cause of the conflict, which is likely to surface again in some way. This would probably be a choice of last resort in this era of individual independence and self-determination.

Although it is not always possible to change a person's behavior, by focusing on the cause of the conflict and the attitudes of those involved, it will lead to a more

~ 18 ~


permanent resolution. It is also possible to change the structural variables involving the conflicting groups, such as changing jobs or rearranging reporting responsibilities. This approach is much more effective when the groups themselves participate in structural change decisions. Without meaningful input, this resolution method resembles avoidance or forcing and is not likely to succeed, further frustrating all involved.

Any method or response to conflict, lost productivity, miscommunication, or unhealthy work environment can be reconstituted in many forms of ADR. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should also be appropriate to the needs of those involved. It is crucial that the organization determines the needs of its stakeholders, the types of conflict that occur, and the conflict culture (how conflict is dealt with) within the organization before initiating an ADR program. Any program must allow for creativity, approachability, and flexibility if people are asked to utilize it. All employees should be aware or involved in the establishment of an ADR program, if it is to work properly. Without full involvement or input, needs assessment is hit or miss, and assumptions lead to actions, which lead to the same place you were before. These assumptions of the organization's leadership would not be tolerated in marketing a new product or acquiring a capital asset, so why are people less important?

Any collaborative process intended to address and manage intergroup conflict should have objectives to encourage it. In this major commitment of time and resources, success is its best reward, but to ensure an ADR approach suitable for you, it is important to:

1. Build trust 2. Clearly define participants' roles and authorities

3. Establish ground rules

4. Promote leadership

5. Bring a collaborative attitude to the table

Conflicts within or between groups can be destructive or constructive; depending on how the conflicts are handled.

When an organization is creating a dispute resolution process, there are key factors to success:

~ 19 ~


1. A critical mass of individuals who are committed to the process; 2. A leadership group who perceive it in their best interest and the best

interests of the people they serve;

3. Strategic cooperation among historical enemies;

4. Realistic and satisfactory outcomes;

5. A moratorium on hostilities or conflict-seeking behavior.

There also are barriers to success:

Lack of success stories.

1. Fear of losing power; 2. Unwillingness to negotiate;

3. No perceived benefit;

4. Corporate philosophy;

5. Top leadership reluctance;

Responsible measures to reduce barriers and encourage a true paradigm shift are training, incentives, marketing, periodic review, case studies, and top management support and participation. Facilitators trained in mediation and other forms of ADR are a necessary resource from outside or within the organization. The workplace of the new millennium will have in-house mediation or other conflict management programs to reduce formal claims and act as a risk management business practice.

~ 20 ~


CHAPTER 3

IDENTIFYING

~ 21 ~


CONFLICTSTAGES

CONFLICT STAGES

~ 22 ~


-------------------------------------------It has become common to describe conflicts as passing through a series of phases. Different authors name and describe these stages differently, but most include, at a minimum:

1. No conflict 2. Latent conflict 3. Emergence 4. (Hurting) Stalemate 5. Settlement/Resolution

These phases are frequently shown on a diagram that looks something like this, although the accompanying text will always explain that the progress from one stage to the next is not smooth and conflicts may repeat stages several times.

Delineating different stages is also useful in efforts to resolve conflict. By recognizing the different dynamics occurring at each stage of a conflict, one can appreciate that the strategies and tactics for participants and interveners differ depending on the phase of the conflict.

(1) No Conflict Stage

At this stage the atmosphere is very healthy. And especially in business this is very helpful. All person work together and very happily living their professional life.

Example of transactions in a no conflict stage;Boss: Hey Raju, I am confident you will do very well job!Employee: Yes sir, I try my level best. When people more closed and clashed their egos then after start the conflict step by step which had fallowed mention in next stage.

(2) Latent Conflict Stage

~ 23 ~


Fig. 4 Latent conflict stage

When the "stages of conflict" are listed by conflict scholars, the first phase is often listed as "latent conflict" or "unstable peace," It exists whenever individuals, groups, organizations, or nations have differences that bother one or the other, but those differences are not great enough to cause one side to act to alter the situation. Differential power, resources, differing interests or values all have the potential to spark conflict if a triggering event occurs. Citing Collins, Paul Wehr observed that, "social life is above all a struggle for power and status regardless of the type of structure. An inevitable power differential between groups, and between individuals, produces latent conflict in all social relations."

Yet the seeds of conflict may exist for long periods of time without actors being aware of them. Often one side, most likely the privileged one, is largely unaware of the existence of tensions. While the less-privileged party may be aware of the situation, and may even consider it unjust, the conflict does not "emerge" until they act to change the situation.

Sometimes, however, the conflict never emerges. An alienating social structure tends to suppress the emergence of social conflict. According to Wehr, Marx saw capitalism as alienating workers from their labour and from one another, thus inhibiting open class conflict. In addition, culture hides this alienation, advocating beliefs and values that support the maintenance of the dominant group's position. "

~ 24 ~

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflict_stages/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflict_emergence/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/address_injustice/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/power_inequities/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/Power/


If destructive conflict has not yet emerged, steps can be taken to minimize its potential. Taken together, these steps are typically called "conflict prevention" or “violence prevention”. Such steps include:

Democratic institutions, which can provide a peaceful avenue for conflicts to be discussed.

Other efforts to construct a common identity may bear fruit.

Intermediaries may help facilitate discussions, thereby minimizing misunderstandings and working out grievances and frustrations before they come to a head.

If such steps are not taken, however, the situation can fester until a triggering event transforms the latent conflict into a manifest, "erupted," or "emerged" conflict

(3) Conflict Emergence Stage

Fig. 5 Conflict Emergence Stage

After a conflict has remained latent for some time, if the underlying grievances or frustrations are strong enough, a "triggering event" marks the emergence or the "eruption" phase of the conflict. This event or episode may be the first appearance

~ 25 ~

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/grievance_procedures/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/latent_conflict/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflict_emergence/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/misunderstandings/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/facilitation/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/intermediary_roles/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/commonalities/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/democratization/


of the conflict, or it may be a confrontation that erupts in the context of a protracted, but dormant, or low-level conflict.

Modest reformist goals may appear inadequate, in the face of the revelations evident from new encounters with the dominant groups. The goals then are reformulated so that the adversaries are required to make more radical and extreme changes. The conflict increasingly is seen by the opponents to be zero sum, so that whatever one side gains is at the expense of the other.

(4) Hurting Stalemate Stage

Fig. 7 Hurting Stalemate Stage

Once conflicts escalate for awhile, they often reach a stalemate: a situation in which neither side can win, but neither side wants to back down or accept loss either. Stalemates emerge for a number of reasons: failed tactics, depletion of

~ 26 ~

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sum/


available resources to fuel the conflict, a reduction in support of the conflict by group members or allies, or costs becoming too high to continue.

Despite realizing that the conflict is going nowhere, it is often difficult for parties to transform the nature of the conflict and consider a settlement. For long-term conflicts, individuals have been socialized to the polarized view of self and other. They are afraid of the other side and do not want to reconcile with them or meet their demands.

What is more, many individuals on both sides build up a vested interest in the perpetuation of the conflict. If the conflict is bringing them political power or economic opportunities, they may want to keep it going, rather than working towards de-escalation or settlement. Leaders also fear the loss of face that would ensue if they had to admit that pursuing the conflict was a mistake. (That is why face-saving measures are especially important for settlement.)

Eventually, conflicts reach a point at which a sort of equilibrium sets in, in which neither side is getting any closer to achieving its goals and which no one is happy with the situation. They come to realize that the costs of continuing the struggle exceed (oftentimes greatly exceed) the benefits to be gained. This is the situation known as the "mutually hurting stalemate" which is often ripe for the introduction of proposals for settlement.

(5)Settlement Stage

Fig. 9 Dispute Settlement

~ 27 ~

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/ripeness/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/face/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/termination_resolution_phase/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/limiting_escalation/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/reconciliation/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/polarization/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation/


As an intractable conflict comes to an end, the components of the conflict start to change. New or greatly changed collective identities become dominant.

Goals also change as intractable conflict's end. Thus, after de-escalation, neither side's new goals include the destruction of its adversary. This change may reflect the separation of a few leaders on one side from their now-transformed constituency. The members of a communal or ideological organization may repudiate the organization leaders upon their defeat, and the victorious other side may accept the repudiation as genuine.

Significantly, the methods of struggle also change as an intractable conflict comes to an end. Often, a political process is established that provides legitimate regulated processes for dealing with contention. Groups that had been excluded from effective participation in making decisions of central concern to them may gain access to effective engagement in such decision-making.

If most or all of the underlying causes of the conflict are finally remedied, the conflict may be resolved permanently or at least for a long time. If some grievances remain, however, the conflict may be simply "settled" for the time being, but may develop again later as grievances again become significant. Thus, even at the supposed "end" of an intractable conflict, the path to resolution is not always smooth and linear, but may fall back into previous stages if conditions change.

~ 28 ~

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/public_participation/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/legitimacy/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/leaders/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/commonalities/


CHAPTER 4TRANSACTIONAL

ANALYSIS

~ 29 ~


Transactional Analysis

Transactional Analysis (or TA as it is often called) is a model of people and relationships that was developed during the 1960s by Dr. Eric Berne. It is based on two notions: first that we have three parts or 'ego-states' to our 'personality. The other assumption is that these converse with one another in 'transactions' (hence the name). TA is a very common model used in therapy and there is a great deal written about it.

Parent, Adult and Child

We each have internal models of parents, children and also adults, and we play these roles with one another in our relationships. We even do it with ourselves, in our internal conversations.

~ 30 ~


Fig. 11 Internal models of ego states

Parent

There are two forms of Parent we can play.

The Nurturing Parent is caring and concerned and often may appear as a mother-figure (though men can play it too). They seek to keep the Child safe and offer unconditional love, calming them when they are troubled.

The Controlling (or Critical) Parent, on the other hand, tries to make the Child do as the parent wants them to do, perhaps transferring values or beliefs or helping the Child to understand and live in society. They may also have negative intent, using the Child as a whipping-boy or worse.

Adult

~ 31 ~


The Adult in us is the 'grown up' rational person who talks reasonably and assertively, neither trying to control nor reacting. The Adult is comfortable with them and is, for many of us, our 'ideal self'.

Child

There are three types of Child we can play.

The Natural Child is largely un-self-aware and is characterized by the non-speech noises they make (yahoo, etc.). They like playing and are open and vulnerable.

The cutely-named Little Professor is the curious and exploring Child who is always trying out new stuff (often much to their Controlling Parent's annoyance). Together with the Natural Child they make up the Free Child.

The Adaptive Child reacts to the world around them, either changing them to fit in or rebelling against the forces they feel.

Communications (transactions)

When two people communicate, each exchange is a transaction. Many of our problems come from transactions which are unsuccessful.

Fig. 12 Communication Analysis

~ 32 ~


Parents naturally speak to Children, as this is their role as a parent. They can talk with other Parents and Adults, although the subject still may be about the children.

The Nurturing Parent naturally talks to the Natural Child and the Controlling Parent to the Adaptive Child. In fact these parts of our personality are evoked by the opposite. Thus if I act as an Adaptive Child, I will most likely evoke the Controlling Parent in the other person.

We also play many games between these positions, and there are rituals from greetings to whole conversations (such as the weather) where we take different positions for different events. These are often 'pre-recorded' as scripts we just play out. They give us a sense of control and identity and reassure us that all is still well in the world. Other games can be negative and destructive and we play them more out of sense of habit and addiction than constructive pleasure.

Conflict

Complementary transactions occur when both people are at the same level. Thus Parent talking to Parent, etc. Here, both are often thinking in the same way and communication is easy. Problems usually occur in Crossed transactions, where the other person is at a different level.

The parent is either nurturing or controlling, and often speaks to the child, who is either adaptive or ‘natural’ in their response. When both people talk as a Parent to the other’s Child, their wires get crossed and conflict results.

The ideal line of communication is the mature and rational Adult-Adult relationship.

Life Positions

In the process of developing an identity people define for themselves, early in life, what the meaning of their life or existence is. Some people decide they are OK and are going to have a good life; but many others decide they are not OK and will fail in some way. That expectation based on a decision of how life will be is their existential position.

~ 33 ~


Attitude toward oneself

Attitude toward other people

Fig. 13 Four Life Positions

a. I am OK, you are OK: A person accepts others in spite of their shortcomings and feels OK about them despite their not being perfect.

b. I am OK, you are not OK: Comes over as distrustful, arrogant superior. Thinks that others are inferiors.

c. I am not OK, you are OK: Recognized by attitudes of depression, powerlessness and inferiority. Thinks that others are better.

d. A am not OK, you are not OK: A position of thorough hopelessness and despair

Obviously, I am OK, you are OK life position is the most healthy life position.

Psychological Games People Play

a. These are those seemingly straight transactions/conversations which have some underlying ulterior motive.

b. Psychological games cause discomfort and bad feelings.

c. When played to a higher/extreme degree, games culminate in very harmful and destructive behavior.

~ 34 ~

Positive I’ m OK – You’re not OK

(Assertiveness)

I’m OK – You’re OK

(No assertiveness)

Negative I’ m not OK – You’re not OK

(Aggressiveness)

Negative

I’ m not OK – You’re OK

(No assertiveness)

Positive


d. Most people spend large proportion of their time and energy playing games with others as adult part (ego state) of their personality is usually unaware of what is happening and they continue with games.

e. One more reason for playing games is confirm to a basic life position (OKness) described earlier.

Given below are some of these games, the ones that are particularly played in an organization's environment:

Blemish: It is played to enjoy superior feelings. The person playing this game will find a minute fault (blemish) in other person's behavior or performance despite the fact that the job has been overall done well. The initiator of the game will open his comments with, "It's OK, you finally did well, but...........”

Now I've got you: The person playing this game will set up or dig out a situation where the other person made some mistake, only to step in at a later stage to point out that mistake, with superior posture and smile of triumph.

Mine's better than yours: In this game the initiator consistently uses superlatives which show him in a superior position over the others. The usual expressions are, "I always stay in five star hotels when on holidays". "I was ill but it wasn't as bad as Mr. XYZ". "My children go to the best school in the town" etc.

Why don't you, yes but: The initiator of the game invites suggestions or ideas from others in a meeting or in day-to-day encounters and when idea is given with, "Why not try this method......" the person playing this game always finds an objection by saying, "Yes, but, will it work or yes, but did you consider the high costs involved" etc. The suggestion howsoever good it may be is always played down with, "Yes, but.......”

I was only trying to help you out: In this game, the game player is usually behaving from his nurturing parent ego state. He will offer probably unsolicited advices to others time and again and due to this if his advice is rejected or not heeded to, he will say, "I was only trying to help you out" blaming the other person for not taking the advice in the right spirit.

Stupid: This person constantly misunderstands the directives or instructions given to him and keeps convincing himself that he is not intelligent enough to understand

~ 35 ~


them properly as others do. It confirms his "I am not OK, others are OK" life position. And many a time , he may actually say, "I must be stupid".

Kick me: This person will provoke criticism from others and keeps making mistakes and keeps getting negative strokes from others. He is out to confirm his "Non OKness".

~ 36 ~


CHAPTER 5CONFLICT

MANAGEMENT

TECHNIQUES

~ 37 ~


Improving group, organizational or team dynamics when conflict occurs

Team unity: 5 conflict management techniques

Missionaries get into conflict with each other. Pastors and lay people get into conflict. Volunteers in ministry organizations find themselves in conflict. How can you manage disagreements in ways that build, rather than harm, personal and collegial relationships? Such disagreements or conflicts can occur between individuals or between groups of people. Here are five strategies from conflict management theory for managing stressful situations.

1. Collaborating: win/win 2. Compromising: win some/lose some

3. Accommodating: lose/win

4. Competing: win/lose

5. Avoiding: no winners/no losers

1. Collaborating

I win, you win

Fundamental premise: Teamwork and cooperation help everyone achieve their goals while also maintaining relationships Strategic philosophy: The process of working through differences will lead to creative solutions that will satisfy both parties' concerns When to use:

a. When there is a high level of trust b. When you don't want to have full responsibility

c. When you want others to also have "ownership" of solutions

d. When the people involved are willing to change their thinking as more information is found and new options are suggested

Drawbacks: a. The process takes lots of time and energy

~ 38 ~

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/conflict.htm#avoid

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/conflict.htm#compet

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/conflict.htm#accomo

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/conflict.htm#compro


b. Some may take advantage of other people's trust and openness

2. Compromising

You bend, I bend

Fundamental premise: Winning something while losing a little is OK Strategic philosophy: Both ends are placed against the middle in an attempt to serve the "common good" while ensuring each person can maintain something of their original position

When to use: a. When people of equal status are equally committed to goals b. When goals are moderately important

Drawbacks: a. Important values and long-term objectives can be derailed in the process b. May not work if initial demands are too great

3. Accommodating

I lose, you win

Fundamental premise: Working toward a common purpose is more important than any of the peripheral concerns; the trauma of confronting differences may damage fragile relationships Strategic philosophy: Appease others by downplaying conflict, thus protecting the relationship

When to use: a. When an issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person b. When you realize you are wrong

c. When you are willing to let others learn by mistake

d. When you know you cannot win

Drawbacks: a. One's own ideas don't get attention b. Credibility and influence can be lost

~ 39 ~


4. Competing

I win, you lose

Fundamental premise: Associates "winning" a conflict with competition Strategic philosophy: When goals are extremely important, one must sometimes use power to win When to use:

a. When you know you are right b. When time is short and a quick decision is needed

Drawbacks: a. Can escalate conflict b. Losers may retaliate

5. Avoiding

No winners, no losers Fundamental premise: This isn't the right time or place to address this issue Strategic philosophy: Avoids conflict by withdrawing, sidestepping, or postponing

When to use: a. When the conflict is small and relationships are at stake b. When more important issues are pressing and you feel you don't have time

to deal with this particular one

c. When you are too emotionally involved and others around you can solve the conflict more successfully

d. When more information is needed

Drawbacks: a. Important decisions may be made by default b. Postponing may make matters worse

~ 40 ~


CHAPTER 6CONFLICT

RESOLUTION

5 Steps for Conflict Resolution

~ 41 ~


5 Steps: Overview The following process is useful for effectively managing conflict in your workplace, in relationships, or in other situations where you have an interest in seeking a negotiated solution. These steps won't guarantee an agreement, but they greatly improve the likelihood that the problems can be understood, solutions explored, and consideration of the advantages of a negotiated agreement can occur within a relatively constructive environment. They provide useful strategies to consider that reduce the impacts of stress, fears and "surprise" factors involved in dealing with conflict.

1. "Know Thyself" and Take Care of Self

2. Identify a Safe Place for Negotiation

3. Approach Problem-Solving with Flexibility

4. Manage Impasse with Calm, Patience, and Respect

5. Build an Agreement that Works

1) "Know Thyself" and Take Care of Self

Understand your "perceptual filters," biases, triggers Create a personally affirming environment (eat, sleep, exercise)

Self-awareness and care are essential to an effective approach to conflict management. The more I am aware of my own biases and "hot buttons," the more likely I can prepare myself mentally, emotionally and physically to respond in a preferred way. In addition, if I take good care of myself by exercising, eating properly and getting adequate sleep, that can help me listen well and clearly express my needs in attempting to work out a solution to the conflict.

A few questions I can ask myself include:

~ 42 ~


What are some behaviors by other people that tend to be difficult for me to handle during conflict? How do I tend to respond when confronting such behaviors? How would I prefer to respond?

What are some things that I can do for myself that help me develop a more personally affirming environment… in other words, how can I treat myself with respect, so I can draw on that energy in times of stress?

Usually, we know people (friends, co-workers, supervisors) who we trust to "tell us like it is" when we are having a difficult time. Are there people in my work (or personal) environment that can help me stay "on track" in these situations? We all have different ways of responding to conflicts, and those responses lead to understandable consequences. These responses include our behaviors, feelings, thoughts, and physical reactions.

needs to be negotiated: Substantive needs have to do with the "stuff" of the conflict… often the problem that we feel needs to be solved.Procedural needs relate to the process of addressing these substantive needs. Ground rules, for example, are a process step that can help ensure that all stakeholders feel included in a meaningful way.Psychological needs relate to a fostering a safe environment, one in which people are willing to take the risks involved in honestly communicating their differences, concerns and potential similarities to one another.

In any dispute, all three types of needs are present and must be addressed. . If we are going to really try to build a meaningful agreement, we will need to understand how these various needs are present for each person in the situation.

~ 43 ~


1) Identify a Safe Place for Negotiation

~ 44 ~


1) Identify a Safe Place for Negotiation

a. Appropriate Space for Discussion/ Private and Neutral

b. Mutual Consent to Negotiate/ Appropriate Time

c. Role of Support People (Facilitators, Mediators, Advocates), as needed

Safe Space

In order to have a constructive conversation, people generally need to feel that they are in a "safe place," --a place where they can take the risks involved in honest communication about meaningful issues.

If possible, identify a private, neutral room in which to hold your conversation, preferably a space that isn't "owned" by one person or the other. If the conversation starts in a more public place (for example, if confronted by a customer), suggest that it might be helpful if the two of you could, at least, move to a more private area within the room.

Appropriate Time

Be sure that the time is also acceptable and appropriate. Do not try to negotiate a complex agreement in fifteen minutes! If time is limited, agree on a scope for this discussion and then set up an opportunity for follow-up. You might say, "Let's get started in the brief time we have available and then get together again."

Consider the use of third parties as appropriate to the needs of the situation: Facilitators and mediators can impartially focus on the process, so people involved in a dispute can fully participate in dialogue. Advocates can be especially helpful when there are significant power differences, or when one party or another might require additional support and assistance in order to effectively participate. The Employee Assistance Office, or the Office of Quality Improvement, or the new Embeds Program for Faculty and Staff, or the Union Leaders and Stewards are excellent resources for assistance.

~ 45 ~

http://danenet.danenet.org/local2412/

http://www.ombuds.wisc.edu/

http://www.wisc.edu/improve/

http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/eao/

http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/onlinetraining/resolution/glossary.htm#mediator

http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/onlinetraining/resolution/glossary.htm#facilitator


2) Take a Listening Stance into the Interaction

a. Seek first to understand, then to be understood" (Covey)

b. Use Active Listening skills

Active listening text: When engaged in a conflict, we have a tendency to "push, push, and push!" Of course, this is because "you just don't understand me!" One of the most important challenges we face in negotiating solutions to conflicts is the need to resist the urge to push and, instead, make a special effort to listen. If we dedicate ourselves to active listening, we significantly improve the likelihood that our ideas and feelings, in turn, will be understood by the other person. And if we truly come to understand the other's point of view in the conflict, we may actually clarify why the situation has become so combustible to this point.

When listening to the other person's point of view, the following responses are often helpful:

What to Do How to Say It

Encourage the other person to share his or her issues as fully as possible.

"I want to understand what has upset you."

"I want to know what you are really hoping for."

Clarify the real issues, rather than making assumptions. Ask questions that allow you to gain this information, and which let the other person know you are trying to understand.

"Can you say more about that?"

"Is that the way it usually happens?"

Restate what you have heard, so you are both able to see what has been understood so far - it may be that the other person will then realize that

"It sounds like you weren't expecting that to happen."

~ 46 ~


additional information is needed.

Reflect feelings - be as clear as possible.

"I can imagine how upsetting that must have been."

Validate the concerns of the other person, even if a solution is elusive at this time. Expressing appreciation can be a very powerful message if it is conveyed with integrity and respect.

"I really appreciate that we are talking about this issue."

"I am glad we are trying to figure this out."

By taking a listening stance into the interaction, you set the scene for your opportunity to share your concerns about the conflict. Again, we recognize that this can be very challenging! But, if you persevere, the effort is often worth it.

3) Approach Problem-Solving with Flexibility

a. Identify Issues Clearly and Concisely

b. Generate Options (Brainstorm), While Deferring Judgment

c. Be open to "tangents" and other problem definitions

d. Clarify Criteria for Decision-Making

At this stage of the discussion, good rules for problem solving and analysis apply. Use whatever tools and processes you may have at your disposal in order to engage in a creative, and productive process, as well as the use of an external facilitator or mediator if you feel it would be beneficial to the group engaged in negotiations.

Be sure to take one issue at a time, starting with an issue that both of you agree is worthy of discussion. Try to make it a "bitable bite," rather than the most difficult issue of conflict.

Generate several possible solutions to the problem, "brainstorming" ideas or otherwise making sure that all parties participate in the process. At this stage, it is important to defer judgments and evaluations of potential solutions, for to do so

~ 47 ~

http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/onlinetraining/resolution/resources.htm#toolsandprocesses


prematurely risks creating a "chilling effect" on the further generation of ideas. If one idea is rejected too quickly, other ideas may be similarly rejected without appropriate consideration. Even if you quickly identify an acceptable solution, it is useful to explore a few additional ideas before settling on the best answer to the problem.

Clarify the criteria that you are using for evaluating options - sometimes, this can be an important insight for people as they negotiate, because they may have different notions of what they value in a good solution. For example, one person may value a quick solution, while the other wants one that is longer lasting. One person may want to do something that is inexpensive, staying within our current budget, while the other person may feel that it is okay to spend more today to save money and stress in the future.

Good solutions to problems emerge from mutually acceptable criteria being applied in a clear decision-making process. Understand the power present in the room to solve the problems being presented… Sometimes, you may bemoan a situation over which you have limited control. It may be important to acknowledge the larger issue or another concern that is beyond your control, but it is important to prevent such concerns from becoming "tangents" that take up your time and energy in less constructive ways. If it feels like the discussion has drifted into another area, check for clarification of the agenda at hand: "I'm confused. Earlier, we were discussing Issue A, now I hear you raising some concerns in a new area… is this where we want to focus, or should we return to Issue A?" This type of query can help clarify what the other person is intending, allowing you to either support this shift or express why you feel the original issue still needs your attention.

As you reach agreement regarding solutions to each of the problems being negotiated, summarize these ideas in writing and restate them back to each other to be sure everyone agrees with both the intent of the solution and its specific language. If it is appropriate to leave things a bit ambiguous, until other issues are discussed, this is fine; just be sure that at the end of the discussion there is a clear record that accurately conveys to all parties - as well as others who may have a need to understand how the problem has been solved - what you are now intending to do and how you plan to do it.

~ 48 ~


4) Manage Impasse with Calm, Patience, and Respect

a. Clarify Feelings

b. Focus on Underlying Needs, Interests, and Concerns

c. Take a structured break, as needed

It may also be true that certain issues will not present immediate solutions, and an impasse will be reached regarding such issues. Impasse is the point within a dispute in which the parties are unable to perceive effective solutions. People feel stuck, frustrated, angry, and disillusioned. As a result, they might either dig their heels in deeper, anchoring themselves in extreme and rigid positions, or they might decide to "take their marbles and go home," withdrawing from negotiation. Either way, impasse represents a turning point in our efforts to negotiate a solution to the conflict. As such, rather than avoiding or dreading it, impasse should be viewed with calm, patience, and respect.

These are all important questions to keep in mind, so you may remain focused on your priorities in a realistic manner. Collaborative efforts to negotiate solutions to conflicts are not necessarily driven by shared goals or concerns; indeed, you may have very different 'visions' for the organization, even if you work together. But you may still find it worthwhile to negotiate together because the alternatives are more costly. In the end, your decision regarding whether or not to continue negotiating will be based upon self-interest and your best opportunities to meet your needs.

A number of strategies for managing impasse exist, and each may be considered for its potential contribution to your specific situation. As you seek to navigate this tricky stage of the process, be sure to check your own energy along the way. It is better to take breaks (a few minutes, a few days - whatever is appropriate) in order to regain your energy and focus for the challenge. Try not to view such breaks as complete opportunities to withdraw from the negotiation process; rather, we should structure these times between conversations as opportunities for reflection,

~ 49 ~

http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/onlinetraining/resolution/step7.htm#strategies_for_managing_impasse%23strategies_for_managing_impasse


examination of the true needs of the situation, and consideration of possible alternatives that we may have been reluctant to consider in the heat of the moment.

If you are working with a third party mediator or facilitator, breaks may also provide an opportunity to "caucus" in separate meetings that allow you to gain perspective on your frustrations and other resentments towards the other party. By taking such reflective time, you return to the conversation with a clearer sense of your commitment, as well as parameters that exist for you at this time.

5) Build an Agreement that Works

a. Review "Hallmarks" of a Good Agreement

b. Implement and Evaluate - Live and Learn

OK, so you are coming down the 'home stretch' and everything is looking rosy… right? Not likely… people have been working hard to overcome their differences and have painstakingly crafted some ideas that may be helpful to their situation. While occasionally people are feeling pretty good at this point, they are much more commonly feeling exhausted and uncertain. Therefore, the final step of the process is just as important as the others along the way.

As you come to the conclusion of the negotiation process, identify areas of agreement as clearly and specifically as possible, preferably in writing. Then review the agreement in light of the following "hallmarks":

1) Is it fair? Do all parties feel the agreement is fair and reasonable?2) Is the agreement balanced? Does everyone have a stake and role in its

implementation?

3) Are the action steps realistic? Do we have the time, energy, skills and resources to follow-through and implement this agreement?

4) Is the agreement specific enough to proceed? Does everyone understand what we need to do and when we need to do it?

As your conversation concludes, leave the session with a commitment to implement the plans that you have determined together. If unexpected problems or

~ 50 ~


challenges come up (for example, someone gets sick or unexpected workload changes make it difficult to pay attention to the agreement for a few days), communicate openly with one another about these challenges. As appropriate, sit down again in order to renegotiate solutions on the basis of new information. Try not to assume that, if something doesn't happen when you expected it to occur, it means that the other person has abandoned the agreement or is intentionally sabotaging the process. People generally try their hardest to make things work, and it is important to communicate with each other about potential pitfalls before they fester and become crises.

It is often useful to build into the agreement and opportunity to "check back" with each other to evaluate progress towards implementation. In this way, any concerns about the agreement can be uncovered in a timely way, rather than waiting for problems to worsen. Such a meeting also provides an opportunity to recognize your good work and progress together - all right! We're actually moving in the right direction! Finally, such a meeting can be quite important for providing a safe space in which to explore additional issues and concerns, especially those that were not viewed as "safe" to explore in the previous conversation. Sometimes, we also find that by implementing solutions to the problems that were discussed, we realize there were other "undiscussables" that we weren't conscious of or which we were reluctant to raise. By peeling away another "layer of the conflict," we may get to important conversations, even if they prove to be difficult. In that event, it is important to return to the first steps of the process, and proceed with patience, flexibility and respect.

Arranging the Furniture: Creating the Best Environment for Dialogue

When considering how to negotiate, it is important to take into account the spaces and rooms in which we do so. As noted earlier, identify a neutral space for the

discussion whenever possible. Then take a few moments to consider the following:

1. What type of privacy do we have in this space? Are we able to ensure that what we say in this area will remain as confidential as we would like it to be?

~ 51 ~


2. Is the table conducive to good conversation? Some tables are long, situated so people either can't see and hear each other or are set up in 'opposing'

seats. Seek a round table if possible, or sit at the end of a longer table so you are able to easily communicate.

3. Use seats that convey fairness and equality, especially in situations in which one person supervises (or otherwise has power over) the other person. Avoid large, ornate chairs that communicate prestige and power for such discussions; the people in the room know who has power, so we must work diligently to improve the sense of safety required to take the risks to negotiate a solution.

4. Have resources that support problem solving present for you to use: a flip chart or white board, steno pads, "Post-It notes," etc. can be important as your discussion evolves into a productive meeting.

As with other advice on this site, our goal is to enhance your opportunities to effectively negotiate solutions to the conflicts you confront in your work at the university. By attending to the space in which you negotiate, making it supportive of the purpose that has brought you to the table; you increase your chances for success.

~ 52 ~


~ 53 ~


CHAPTER 7

CONFLICT RUNIN

FAMILY BUSINESS

V/s

~ 54 ~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reliance_Industries_Official_Logo.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relianceada.gif


CASE EXAMPLE OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

This chapter shows case example of conflict which is run in family business between Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) and Mukesh Ambani (RIL).

Introduction to RIL

Reliance Industries Limited is India's largest private sector conglomerate and second largest in the world, with an annual turnover of US$ 35.9 billion and profit of US$ 4.85 billion for the fiscal year ending in March 2008 making it one of India's private sector Fortune Global 500 companies, being ranked at 206th position (2008). It was founded by the Indian industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani in 1966. Ambani has been a pioneer in introducing financial instruments like fully convertible debentures to the Indian stock markets. Ambani was one of the first entrepreneurs to draw retail investors to the stock markets. Though the company's oil-related operations form the core of its business, it has diversified its operations in recent years. After severe differences between the founder's two sons, Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani, the group was divided between them in 2006. In September 2008, Reliance Industries was the only Indian firm featured in the Forbes's list of "world's 100 most respected companies".

Products

Reliance Industries Limited has a wide range of products from petroleum products, petrochemicals, to garments (under the brand name of Vimal), Reliance Retail has entered into the fresh foods market as Reliance Fresh and launched a new chain called Delight Reliance Retail and NOVA Chemicals have signed a letter of intent to make energy-efficient structures.

~ 55 ~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOVA_Chemicals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemicals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_products

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Ambani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Ambani


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhirubhai_Ambani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Global_500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conglomerate_(company)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India


The primary business of the company is petroleum refining and petrochemicals. It operates a 33 million tone refinery at Jamnagar in the Indian state of Gujarat. Reliance has also completed a second refinery of 29 million tons at the same site which started operations in December 2008. The company is also involved in oil & gas exploration and production. In 2002, it struck a major find on India's eastern coast in the Krishna Godavari basin.

Introduction to RNRL

Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) is engaged in the business of sourcing, supply and transportation of gas, coal and liquid fuels. It is a part of the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group. The company was incorporated on 24 March 2000 and went public on 25 July 2005.

The company is concentrating on building a strong foundation for the business of fuel management and has already established itself as a contending player in the Indian market.

RNRL has also been awarded an oil and gas block with acreage of about 3,619 Sq. Kms. in the state of Mizoram under the sixth round of the New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP–VI) for the exploration and production of oil and gas. The Company has received PEL for this block and has commenced exploration activities.

RNRL is actively pursuing business opportunities in the supply management of coal and natural gas.

Conflict with reference to the Krishna Godavari (K.G.) basin dispute

~ 56 ~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Anil_Dhirubhai_Ambani_Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Godavari_basin


Fig. 14 (Krishna Godavari basin)

Krishna-Godavari basin is a peri-cratonic passive margin basin in India. It is spread across more than 50,000 square kilometers in Krishna River and Godavari River in Andhra Pradesh. The site is known for the D-6 block where Reliance Industries discovered the biggest natural gas reserves in India in 2002. It was also the world's largest gas discovery of 2002.

The Krishna Godavari basin dispute is dispute between Reliance Industries (RIL) and Reliance Natural Resources (RNRL) over the pricing of natural gas found in the Krishna Godavari basin.

RELIANCE RIFT SAGAAround 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas was discovered by Reliance in the Krishna Godavari basin in October 2002. In 2005, the Reliance Group was split between Anil Ambani and Mukesh Ambani with RIL going to Mukesh Ambani and RNRL to Anil Ambani. A family pact was made in 2005 in which RIL was to supply 28 million cubic meters of gas a day at $2.34 per million units to RNRL for 17 years. However, in September 2007, the Indian Government fixed a price of $ 4.2/mBtu. This decision was later reversed by the Bombay High Court, which ordered RIL to supply the gas as per the original agreement.

During the annual general meeting of RNRL on 29 July 2009, Anil Ambani accused the petroleum ministry of siding with RIL and accused RIL of inflating the capital expenditures and being greedy to earn supernatural profits 30 MPs of Left Front asked the government to take over the distribution and marketing of gas from the basin. They also urged the government to reduce the gas price to $2.34/mmbtu.

~ 57 ~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_general_meeting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_High_Court


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Ambani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Godavari_basin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Natural_Resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andra_Pradesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_margin


On 8 August, RIL president Atul Chandra issued a statement which rejected the allegations of Anil Ambani as baseless, tendentious and motivated. Following this, ADAG started publishing advertisements in national media criticizing Reliance and the Petroleum Ministry and claiming that the government will receive only Rs 500 crore from the project. On 21 August, Government of India described the campaign by Anil Ambani as unfortunate and claimed that it is expected to earn Rs 84,000 crore from the project.

(Appendix)

Pricing feud

This price was lower than $4.20 per million units set by the government in 2006 for all buyers of gas from the basin.

Anil Ambani has not accepted the higher selling price set by the government, citing the agreement with his elder brother.

On 15 June, his company won a case in the Bombay High Court, asking his elder brother's company to honor the family agreement.

Mukesh Ambani has appealed against the judgment in the Supreme Court - the court gave its hearing on the 1st September.

India's oil ministry has also become embroiled in the controversy - federal oil Minister Murli Deora has been criticized by Anil Ambani for allegedly siding with his elder brother.

In return, Mr. Deora has said gas is a national property and belongs to the people of India - "It really doesn't belong to them [Mukesh and Anil Ambani]," he told reporters.

~ 58 ~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India


CHAPTER 8ARTICLE

ON

ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT

~ 59 ~


~ 60 ~


Organizational Conflict - The Good, the Bad & the Ugly

In my work with public sector managers and supervisors, the issue that generates the most emotion, and frustrated comments, is conflict within the organization. We generally do not look at conflict as opportunity -- we tend to think about conflict as unpleasant, counter-productive and time-consuming. Conflict that occurs in organizations need not be destructive, provided the energy associated with conflict is harnessed and directed towards problem-solving and organizational improvement. However, managing conflict effectively requires that all parties understand the nature of conflict in the workplace.

In this first part of our organizational conflict series, we are going to discuss deveral views of conflict. In later issof The Public Sector Managerwewilreturntothe topic with more specific tips on how organizational conflict can be directed to achieve positive ends.

Two Views: The Good, the Bad

There are two ways of looking at organizational conflict. Each of these ways is linked to a different set of assumptions about the purpose and function of organizations.

The Bad

The dysfunctional view of organizational conflict is imbedded in the notion that organizations are created to achieve goals by creating structures that perfectly define job responsibilities, authorities, and other job functions. Like a clockwork watch, each "cog" knows where it fits, knows what it must do and knows how it relates to other parts. This traditional view of organizations values orderliness, stability and the repression of any conflict that occurs. Using the timepiece analogy we can see the sense in this. What would happen to time-telling if the gears in our traditional watches decided to become less traditional, and re-define their roles in the system?

To the "traditional" organizational thinker, conflict implies that the organization is not designed or structured correctly or adequately. Common remedies would be to

~ 61 ~


further elaborate job descriptions, authorities and responsibilities, increase the use of central power (discipline), separate conflicting members, etc.

This view of organizations and conflict causes problems. Unfortunately, most of us, consciously or unconsciously, value some of the characteristics of this "orderly" environment. Problems arise when we do not realize that this way of looking at organizations and conflict only fits organizations that work in routine ways where innovation and change are virtually eliminated. Virtually all government organizations work within a very disorderly context -- one characterized by constant change and a need for constant adaptation. Trying to "structure away" conflict and disagreement in a dynamic environment requires tremendous amounts of energy, and will also suppress any positive outcomes that may come from disagreement, such as improved decision-making and innovation.

The Good

The functional view of organizational conflict sees conflict as a productive force, one that can stimulate members of the organization to increase their knowledge and skills, and their contribution to organizational innovation and productivity. Unlike the position mentioned above, this more modern approach considers that the keys to organization success lie not in structure, clarity and orderliness, but in creativity, responsiveness and adaptability. The successful organization, then, NEEDS conflict so that diverging views can be put on the table, and new ways of doing things can be created.

The functional view of conflict also suggests that conflict provides people with feedback about how things are going. Even "personality conflicts" carry information to the manager about what is not working in an organization, affording the opportunity to improve.

If you subscribe to a flexible vision of effective organizations, and recognize that each conflict situation provides opportunity to improve, you then shift your view of conflict. Rather than trying to eliminate conflict, or suppress its symptoms, your task becomes managing conflict so that it enhances people and organizations, rather than destroying people and organizations.

~ 62 ~


So, the task is to manage conflict, and avoid what we call "the ugly"....where conflict is allowed to eat away at team cohesiveness and productivity.

The Ugly

We have the good (conflict is positive), the bad (conflict is to be avoided), and now we need to address the ugly. Ugly occurs where the manager (and perhaps employees) attempt to eliminate or suppress conflict in situations where it is impossible to do so. You know you have ugly in your organization when:

1. Many conflicts run for years

2. People have given up on resolving and addressing conflict problems

3. There is a good deal of private bitching and complaining but little attempt to fix the problem

4. Staff show little interest in working to common goals, but spend more time and energy on protecting themselves

When we get "ugly" occurring in organizations, there is a tendency to look to the manager or formal leader as being responsible for the mess. In fact, that is how most employees would look at the situation. It is true that managers and supervisors play critical roles in determining how conflict is handled in the organization, but it is also true that the avoidance of ugliness must be a shared responsibility. Management and employees must work together in a cooperative way to reduce the ugliness, and increase the likelihood that conflict can be channeled into an effective force for change.

Ugly Strategies

In future articles we will look at what you can do to proactively manage conflict to increase the probability that positive outcomes occur. Right now, let's look at some common strategies that result in the increase of ugly conflict.

Most of the ugly strategies used by managers, employees, and organizations as a whole are based on the repression of conflict in one way or another. We need to point that, in general, you want to avoid these approaches like the plague.

~ 63 ~


Ugly #1: No action

The most common repressive management strategy is no action -- doing nothing. Now, sometimes, doing nothing is a smart thing to o, provided the decision to do nothing is well thought out and based on an analysis of the situation. Most of the time, people "do nothing" about conflict situations for other reasons, such as fear of bringing conflict into view, or discomfort with anger.

Unfortunately, doing nothing generally results in conflict escalating, and sets a tone for the organization..."we don't have conflict here". Everyone knows you have conflict, and if you seem oblivious, you also seem dense and out of touch.

Ugly #2: Administrative Orbiting

Administrative orbiting means keeping appeals for change or redress always "under consideration". While no action suggests obliviousness since it doesn't even acknowledge the problem, orbiting acknowledges the problem, but avoids dealing with it. The manager who uses orbiting will say things like "We are dealing with the problem", but the problem never gets addressed. Common stalls include: collecting more data, documenting performance, canceling meetings, etc.

Ugly #3: Secrecy

A common means of avoiding conflict (or repressing it) is to be secretive. This can be done by employees and managers. The notion is that if nobody knows what you are doing, there can be little conflict. If you think about this for a moment, you will realize its absurdity. By being secretive you may delay conflict and confrontation, but when it does surface it will have far more negative emotions attached to it than would have been the case if things were more open.

Ugly #4: Law and Order

The final "ugly strategy" is normally the strategy which is used by managers who mistakenly think that they can order people to not be in conflict. Using regulations and power, the person using the approach "leans on" asks people to repress the outward manifestations of conflict.

~ 64 ~


Of course, this doesn't make conflict go away, it just sends it scuttling to the underground, where it will grow and increase its destructive power.

Conclusion

The notion that conflict should be avoided is one of the major contributors to the growth of destructive conflict in the workplace. The "bad" view of conflict is associated with a vision of organizational effectiveness that is no longer valid (and perhaps never was). Conflict can be directed and managed so that it causes both people and organizations to grow, innovate and improve. However, this requires that conflict not be repressed, since attempts to repress are more likely to generate very ugly situations. Common repression strategies to be avoided are: no action, administrative orbiting, secrecy and law and order.

~ 65 ~


CONCLUSION

Realizing the interdependencies in performing any activity and even to lead a

successful and peaceful life people may face variety of conflicts in almost all walks

of life in organizations with their interface to members at organization, family and

society. People will have to reconcile and co-ordinate with several members and

stakeholders to achieve the desired results. These necessities the need of taking the

conflicts in a positive way in order to generate processes, systems, structures to

improve the effectiveness of individuals and teams. A culture has to be building up

where in team members will be encouraged to participate and share their ideas,

unlock the creativity and innovation and interact freely with each other for

institutional learning and growth. Crisis of conflict may be seen as a chance to

bring all the issues and concerns in to the forefront and people may openly vent out

their feeling leading to cooperation and synergy of energies, and empowerment. An

empowered team was all the talents and skills of the players to create even better

and existing results. Effectiveness of managers depends on how well they

understand the underlying dynamics of the conflict, which may be all together

different from its expression, and whether they can identify the crucial tactical

points for intervention. Just like decision-making, conflict management sometimes

becomes programmed and institutionalized in organizations. To a great extent an

organizations success depends on its ability to structure and operate appropriate

~ 66 ~


mechanism to stimulate and manage a variety of conflict phenomenal. Increasing

nature of technological development and competitive global market demanding

higher levels of quality of service, greater sensitivity to customers’ needs has

prompted organizations to create and manage organizational culture that foster

commitment, responsibility and the development of individual potentiality for the

organizational betterment.

Conflict management is people oriented but at the same time all the processes

should be focused on achieving strategic aims, goals and mission of the

organization.

~ 67 ~


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKREFERENCE

Eric Berne, (1964), Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships, Balantine Books.

Newstrom, W. John and Davis Keith. (1998). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at work, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.

Thomas Harris (1996), I'm OK-You're OK, Avon books.

Fisher, Roger and Brown, Scott, Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate, Penguin Books, 1988.

Bolton, Robert, People Skills: How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others & Resolve Conflicts, Simon and Schuster, 1979.

Heitler, Susan M, From Conflict to Resolution, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, 1990.

Webster's Dictionary

Peg Pickering, How to Manage Conflict: Turn all conflicts into win-win outcomes, Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai.

WEBSITES

http://www.beyondintractability.org

http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu

www.rnrl.co.in and www.ril.co.in

~ 68 ~

http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/


NEWSPAPERS

1) MINT 2) THE TIMES OF INDIA 3) THE INDIAN NEWS

NEWS CHANNEL

CNBC AWAZ CNBCTV 18 NDTV PROFIT

~ 69 ~


~ 70 ~


~ 71 ~


~ 72 ~


~ 73 ~

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANISATION

Documents

Transcript of CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANISATION