Handling and resolving conflict in management.
Handling and resolving conflict is one of the greatest challenges for managers and leaders of modern organizations. Each organization must have an ongoing system to resolve conflict. Even though conflict resolution is still a relatively new field of study compared to other aspects of organizational theory, it is incumbent upon leaders to understand this topic. A great place to start this quest for knowledge is in the history of conflict resolution followed by an examination of the applicable principles, tenets, and framework. Furthermore, to illustrate the purpose and usefulness of a Conflict Resolution System, the authors will apply William Ury's theory of conflict resolution to an actual employee relations dispute. Again, a great place to start is with a discussion on the history of conflict resolution.
History
Conflict is a state of unresolved differences between two individuals, an individual and a group, or two or more groups. The differences can be real or imaginary, but the conflict will remain until the differences are resolved. For many people the term conflict, means something bad or something people should avoid at all costs. Conflict has both positive and negative effects. It can be positive when conflict encourages creativity and the expression of ideas or for others to understand the reasons for a disagreement. Conflict can be negative when it creates resistance to change, establishes chaos in organizations, fosters distrust or feelings of defeat, or encumbers communication. Conflicts primarily occur in organizations when people have opposing interests and different personal perspectives. Greater possibilities of conflict exist in organizations that are more diverse. An organization contributes to the existence of conflict if its vision and employee responsibilities are unclear.
Although conflict has been in existence as long as man has, the study of conflict as it relates to business organizations is relatively new. Mary Parker Follett, known as the grandmother of management, was one of the first management theorists to determine that conflict is good and requires a leader's attention. Her theories asserted that conflict was not necessarily a wasteful outbreak of incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned. Prior to Follett, it was traditional for business organizations to avoid conflict all together. This belief is part of Adam Smith's theory of bureaucracy in which he asserts that in a perfect bureaucracy, the workers perform tasks as instructed, and there is very little interaction among the workers on a personal level.
Interestingly, the famed economist Kenneth Boulding was the first to address conflict resolution in business organizations in his article "Towards a Pure Theory of Threat Systems" (424). Although most of this article centered on war and peace, Boulding compared the issuance of threats as a means to entice workers into performing duties, just as one nation will issue a threat of war against another if they do not comply with their demands. He further compared the counterstrike threats of the workers to the counteraction threats made the by nations opposing the demands of the issuing nation. Boulding asserts that this type of act or counteract behavior does not produce effective peace making processes in nations or businesses. His thesis ends with the following poem he wrote that summarizes his beliefs:
Four things that give mankind a shove
Are threats, exchange, persuasion, love;
But taken in the wrong proportions
These give us cultural abortion
For threats bring manifold abuses
In games where everyone loses;
Exchange enriches every nation
But leads us to dangerous alienation;
Persuaders organize their brothers
But fool themselves as well as others;
And love, with longer pull than hate,
Is slow indeed to propagate. (434)
In later works, Boulding contends that conflict resolution attempts should shift the emphasis from the use of threat power to the use of exchange and integrative power. He believes that exchange power, which is associated with bargaining and compromising, and integrative power, which is associated with persuasion and transformative long-term problem solving, is the best choice within organizations to solve conflicts.
The current trend to manage rather than eliminate or ignore conflict in the workplace is dependent on successfully aligning the interest of workers and managers. Unfortunately, this trend became part of the corporate leaders' way of thinking when employees began using organized and wildcat strikes to get what they wanted. During the 1970s, Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, developed and designed procedures for resolving conflict in troubled organizations. Their quest began when leaders at the Caney Creek Coal Mine were distraught with the expensive ongoing strikes of its employees. After studying the facts surrounding the strikes, Ury, Brett, and Goldberg established three methods to use when analyzing conflict and designing a system to resolve disputes. These three methods can effectively end conflicts before differences escalate. The aforementioned three methods are discussed later in this paper.
The study of conflict continued and many social scientist published reports indicating that conflict, if managed correctly in the workplace, could create positive changes to production and processing methods. Businesses began forming quality control circles and re-engineering teams. Assembly line workers got the power to stop the production cycles and correct defects in the production process. The new team structures were very successful in some instances, and failures in others. Comparing successful teams to the unsuccessful teams made it easy determine the reasons for the success or failure. The results pointed to the methods people use to solve conflicts. As a result, businesses started giving personality tests, such as the Myers Briggs personality type indicator, to place compatible employees on teams. Teams underwent training on conflict resolution methods and they were encouraged to solve their own conflicts as they arose.
Framework, Principles, and Tenets
Early, the authors of this paper introduced Ury, Brett, and Goldberg's three methods for analyzing conflict and establishing a Dispute Resolution System. Ury, Brett, and Goldberg examined the negotiation of interest, the adjudication of disputes, and the power play options that result in strikes and lockouts. Their first theory asserts that the preferred method of solving employee disputes was through the negotiating of interests. They argued that solving disputes at this level was less costly for the company and created less hostility between management and the workers. At this stage, the focus is on the desires of the parties involved. Interest-based neutral third parties are assigned to intervene in disputes, and help the parties reach agreements that meet their mutual interests rather than to determine if one party's rights have been violated by the other. Examples of interest-based neutrals in organizations are mediators, ombudsperson, facilitators, and coaches. Interest-based neutral components may be designed as alternatives to rights-based processes, such as in the early stages of grievance procedures and equal employment opportunity cases, or as general workplace conflict management resources. Generally, interest-based neutrals try to maintain the protection of rights-based processes while focusing on helping the parties meet their interests in mutually agreeable terms. Mediation is the most commonly implemented interest-based neutral component in organizations. Communication that would not have flowed between two disputing parties will flow from each party to the mediator. Information unknown to either party is useful in designing agreements that meet the underlying interests of both parties. Rights-based processes involve third parties determining the outcome of a dispute based on laws, contracts, or standards of behavior. Examples of rights-based processes in organizations are arbitration, formal complaint investigation, and peer review panels. These methods began in companies that had unions to provide a means of resolving contract interpretation disputes without resorting to strikes or lawsuits. Rights-based procedures with third-party decision makers are effective because they create a structure in which dispute resolution is systematically improved to enhance fact-finding and reduce biases. Their enforcement powers deter subsequent violations by holding managers accountable for professional and impartial treatment of their employees. Issues not resolved at this level would naturally move on to the next level of adjudication.
History
Conflict is a state of unresolved differences between two individuals, an individual and a group, or two or more groups. The differences can be real or imaginary, but the conflict will remain until the differences are resolved. For many people the term conflict, means something bad or something people should avoid at all costs. Conflict has both positive and negative effects. It can be positive when conflict encourages creativity and the expression of ideas or for others to understand the reasons for a disagreement. Conflict can be negative when it creates resistance to change, establishes chaos in organizations, fosters distrust or feelings of defeat, or encumbers communication. Conflicts primarily occur in organizations when people have opposing interests and different personal perspectives. Greater possibilities of conflict exist in organizations that are more diverse. An organization contributes to the existence of conflict if its vision and employee responsibilities are unclear.
Although conflict has been in existence as long as man has, the study of conflict as it relates to business organizations is relatively new. Mary Parker Follett, known as the grandmother of management, was one of the first management theorists to determine that conflict is good and requires a leader's attention. Her theories asserted that conflict was not necessarily a wasteful outbreak of incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned. Prior to Follett, it was traditional for business organizations to avoid conflict all together. This belief is part of Adam Smith's theory of bureaucracy in which he asserts that in a perfect bureaucracy, the workers perform tasks as instructed, and there is very little interaction among the workers on a personal level.
Interestingly, the famed economist Kenneth Boulding was the first to address conflict resolution in business organizations in his article "Towards a Pure Theory of Threat Systems" (424). Although most of this article centered on war and peace, Boulding compared the issuance of threats as a means to entice workers into performing duties, just as one nation will issue a threat of war against another if they do not comply with their demands. He further compared the counterstrike threats of the workers to the counteraction threats made the by nations opposing the demands of the issuing nation. Boulding asserts that this type of act or counteract behavior does not produce effective peace making processes in nations or businesses. His thesis ends with the following poem he wrote that summarizes his beliefs:
Four things that give mankind a shove
Are threats, exchange, persuasion, love;
But taken in the wrong proportions
These give us cultural abortion
For threats bring manifold abuses
In games where everyone loses;
Exchange enriches every nation
But leads us to dangerous alienation;
Persuaders organize their brothers
But fool themselves as well as others;
And love, with longer pull than hate,
Is slow indeed to propagate. (434)
In later works, Boulding contends that conflict resolution attempts should shift the emphasis from the use of threat power to the use of exchange and integrative power. He believes that exchange power, which is associated with bargaining and compromising, and integrative power, which is associated with persuasion and transformative long-term problem solving, is the best choice within organizations to solve conflicts.
The current trend to manage rather than eliminate or ignore conflict in the workplace is dependent on successfully aligning the interest of workers and managers. Unfortunately, this trend became part of the corporate leaders' way of thinking when employees began using organized and wildcat strikes to get what they wanted. During the 1970s, Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, developed and designed procedures for resolving conflict in troubled organizations. Their quest began when leaders at the Caney Creek Coal Mine were distraught with the expensive ongoing strikes of its employees. After studying the facts surrounding the strikes, Ury, Brett, and Goldberg established three methods to use when analyzing conflict and designing a system to resolve disputes. These three methods can effectively end conflicts before differences escalate. The aforementioned three methods are discussed later in this paper.
The study of conflict continued and many social scientist published reports indicating that conflict, if managed correctly in the workplace, could create positive changes to production and processing methods. Businesses began forming quality control circles and re-engineering teams. Assembly line workers got the power to stop the production cycles and correct defects in the production process. The new team structures were very successful in some instances, and failures in others. Comparing successful teams to the unsuccessful teams made it easy determine the reasons for the success or failure. The results pointed to the methods people use to solve conflicts. As a result, businesses started giving personality tests, such as the Myers Briggs personality type indicator, to place compatible employees on teams. Teams underwent training on conflict resolution methods and they were encouraged to solve their own conflicts as they arose.
Framework, Principles, and Tenets
Early, the authors of this paper introduced Ury, Brett, and Goldberg's three methods for analyzing conflict and establishing a Dispute Resolution System. Ury, Brett, and Goldberg examined the negotiation of interest, the adjudication of disputes, and the power play options that result in strikes and lockouts. Their first theory asserts that the preferred method of solving employee disputes was through the negotiating of interests. They argued that solving disputes at this level was less costly for the company and created less hostility between management and the workers. At this stage, the focus is on the desires of the parties involved. Interest-based neutral third parties are assigned to intervene in disputes, and help the parties reach agreements that meet their mutual interests rather than to determine if one party's rights have been violated by the other. Examples of interest-based neutrals in organizations are mediators, ombudsperson, facilitators, and coaches. Interest-based neutral components may be designed as alternatives to rights-based processes, such as in the early stages of grievance procedures and equal employment opportunity cases, or as general workplace conflict management resources. Generally, interest-based neutrals try to maintain the protection of rights-based processes while focusing on helping the parties meet their interests in mutually agreeable terms. Mediation is the most commonly implemented interest-based neutral component in organizations. Communication that would not have flowed between two disputing parties will flow from each party to the mediator. Information unknown to either party is useful in designing agreements that meet the underlying interests of both parties. Rights-based processes involve third parties determining the outcome of a dispute based on laws, contracts, or standards of behavior. Examples of rights-based processes in organizations are arbitration, formal complaint investigation, and peer review panels. These methods began in companies that had unions to provide a means of resolving contract interpretation disputes without resorting to strikes or lawsuits. Rights-based procedures with third-party decision makers are effective because they create a structure in which dispute resolution is systematically improved to enhance fact-finding and reduce biases. Their enforcement powers deter subsequent violations by holding managers accountable for professional and impartial treatment of their employees. Issues not resolved at this level would naturally move on to the next level of adjudication.
