Chapter 8 WTC Managing Conflict PDF

Chapter 8 MANAGING CONFLICT T his...

Chapter 8 MANAGING CONFLICT T his chapter builds on the insights of prior chapters and discusses how you can manage your own conflicts. Self-management is the optimal approach to manag- ing conflict, because the solutions parties work out together are often more appro- priate and effective than those made by outsiders. If the solutions “fit” all parties well, then you are more likely to follow through on them and, hopefully, avoid relapses back into the same destructive conflict all over again. This chapter could also be titled, “How to Collaborate.” The most effective way of managing conflicts is to engage in the collaborating conflict style with the other party, a process we have sometimes referred to as “collaborating.” As we observed in Chapter 4, sometimes collaborating is not feasible, or we have motives other than to work out a mutual solution, so conflicts can also be managed through compromise or one of the other styles. Collaborating, however, remains the gold standard. If it is done well, col- laborating is the one approach to conflict that has the highest probability of yielding an outcome that will result in satisfaction and prevent eventual relapse back into negative conflict spirals. It sets the stage for moving forward with the other party. As the normative model described in Chapter 1 indicated, to effectively work through conflict, parties must first differentiate and then make the transition into integration, while avoiding spiraling escalation or rigid avoidance of the conflict. This chapter is organized around this model. First, we consider differentiation and how it can be man- aged so as not to lead to escalation or avoidance. Then we lay out a model for conflict management that moves from differentiation through integration. Finally, we consider some of the most challenging obstacles that often prevent the use of constructive conflict Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. management processes. 8.1 REVIEW OF THE NORMATIVE MODEL FOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Before proceeding, it will be useful to review differentiation and integration. Recall that in the differentiation stage, parties express their differences, staking out positions and criticizing others and their positions. Differentiation is quite useful, because if it is han- dled properly, the parties realize they have differences, that all sides are serious and that, therefore, some type of mutually acceptable resolution should be reached. How- ever, as we have seen, things do not always go this way. Differentiation can sometimes be quite challenging and can spiral out of control into an escalating cycle of conflict. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  Managing Conflict 237 Differentiation may also be threatening to parties, and rigid avoidance can result instead of real differentiation. Differentiation is an essential precursor to integration, because unless differences are thoroughly understood and appreciated by all parties, it is impossible to come to a solu- tion that satisfies the parties’ interests and deals with their incompatibility. If differenti- ation is handled properly, at the end of this stage parties will: Have a preliminary understanding of each other’s issues, interests, and positions. Address the legitimacy of each other’s issues, interests, and positions, even if they do not agree with them. Realize that the differences cannot be resolved without working together. Have some motivation to resolve the conflict, even if that motivation is only the knowledge that the other party will continue to resist and prolong the conflict unless a mutually acceptable resolution is worked out. This list makes it evident that differentiation contributes some very important elements to collaboration. Without it, parties would not have the knowledge or motivation nec- essary to interact with each other collaboratively. When all or most of the four functions of differentiation have been fulfilled, the parties are ready to move into the integration stage. In the integration stage, parties: Further explore their issues, interests, and positions and improve their understand- ing of the problems underlying the conflict. Search for and acknowledge common ground or trade-offs that they can capitalize on to attain a mutually acceptable solution. Identify and analyze possible options. Move toward a solution that, ideally, meets everyone’s needs, but at least is one all parties can live with. Commit to implementing the solution and to keeping their part of the bargain. If the integration stage is not properly handled, there is a high likelihood that the conflict will reemerge in the future. And even after integration has occurred, there is often a need to monitor the parties’ behavior to ensure they are abiding by the agreements. To work with conflict, then, it is necessary for parties to differentiate, but it also means to risk losing control. At some point, they must make a transition from differentiation to integration. Managing that transition is important, but also rather tricky. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. 8.2 NAVIGATING DIFFERENTIATION During differentiation, tendencies to escalate can be used to sharpen the conflict and stimulate parties to take each other seriously and attend to each other’s issues. The complementary tendency to pull away and withdraw from the conflict can be used to dampen the escalation and keep the conflict moving toward integration. In navigating differentiation, we must sail between the two negative tendencies of differentiation to make progress toward a positive resolution of the conflict. This is not to say that competing should be avoided altogether during differentiation. Actually, it is often quite useful. A competing approach signals the importance of an issue to others. The general assumption is that people will not forcefully pursue a goal unless it Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  238 Managing Conflict is meaningful to them. So being willing to fight for something shows others that it is a pri- ority and helps others realize that they should try to understand alternative perspectives. Competing also has another useful function. By persistently competing parties demonstrate resolve. Sometimes a party will engage in uncollaborative behavior such as trying to wait you out, avoidance, or even competition in the hope that you will give up and go away, or even give in. By engaging the other party sharply, a competing style demonstrates that you must be reckoned with. The costs to the other party of engaging in a competition may also motivate him or her to shift to a more collaborative approach, and the more resolve you show, the more the other party is likely to assume these costs will persist or even increase as time goes on. Effective conflict management and negotiation often involves a combination of competing and collaborating. The competing behavior sharpens the conflict and sig- nals commitment to positions, while collaborating moves the parties toward a mutually acceptable position. So, the challenge is to differentiate without developing so much negative momentum that spiraling escalation or rigid avoidance occur. In the preceding chapters, we discussed strategies and techniques for dealing with problems introduced by emotional, cognitive, and interaction processes; by power; by face-saving; and climate. Following this advice will help you deal with specific problems that might occur during differentiation or that might rear their heads during integration. But there are also some strategies and tech- niques that specifically support successful differentiation. 8.2.1 Framing Problems or Issues How we state our problems, issues, or positions makes a difference. It is important to cultivate a promotive, cooperative climate during differentiation, and the ways in which we frame problems and issues contribute to this. This is best accomplished by placing primary emphasis on the problem or issue itself and not on the people involved. One of the classic sources on conflict and negotiation, Fisher and Ury’s (1981) Getting to Yes, puts it this way: focus on the problem, not the people. If we state our issues as problems without blaming the other party, then the other party is much less likely to become defensive. The attention of all can then be on the problems before them and not on defending themselves or feeling blame or guilt. Gordon (1970) has advanced a useful model for stating problems: “I have a problem. When you do X, Y results, and I feel Z.” Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. This may seem a little formulaic, but note what this model does. First, when we state a problem this way (“I have a problem...”), we are taking ownership of it, rather than putting it off on the other. This is likely to reduce the blame the other would feel if we had stated things differently, for example, saying, “you drive me crazy!” In this case, the statement points the finger at the other, setting the stage for defensiveness. By describing the specific behavior, the other party engages in (X), we avoid evaluating the other party. If we say, “when you interrupt me,” it puts the focus on the behavior, something that is specific and something that can be changed by the other party. If, on the other hand, we say, “your interruptions are so rude!” the other party will understand the behavior but also feel evaluated, which is likely to lead to defensiveness and perhaps some pushback. Outlining a specific, observable consequence of the behavior helps the other party under- stand what results from his or her behavior. For example, to continue our interruption Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  Managing Conflict 239 example, the party might say, “when you interrupt me I do not get to contribute my ideas, and those ideas might help us do a better job.” The party may well not be aware of the damage his or her behavior does, or of the possibilities not yet explored. Finally, stating how the behavior makes you feel helps the other party understand its consequences for you. This also reinforces your ownership of the problem because they are your feelings. Here’s a full example: I have a problem. When you were complimented on our presentation and didn’t acknowl- edge my contribution to it (X), it made me feel angry (Z). I don’t believe I was given proper credit, and this makes me wonder if I should work as hard next time (Y). This model for stating problems is likely to foster the supportive climate as discussed in Chapter 7. It is descriptive, problem-oriented, and conveys equality. It is strategic, rather than spontaneous. However, if you convey your message in an open way and leave your- self open to explanations, the other party should see your strategy as supportive rather than manipulative. This model is not particularly empathetic, but again, if you convey openness to discussion, you can show empathy in other ways. Formulas like this may seem a bit awkward and artificial, and you should not feel constrained to follow this model word-for-word. It is simply important that all four ele- ments be present in your communication of the problem. This way of stating problems is meant to situate the problem “out in the open” between you and the other party so that you can discuss it in a collaborative fashion. It leaves the other party a number of options for responding, rather than backing her or him into a corner. The other party can consider changing behavior or finding a way to help assuage your negative feelings. He or she can also explain the behavior from his or her point of view so that you can understand it better. Finally, the other party can reject your problem and refuse to change. It is important to be persistent in stating your case. If rejected, do not back down. You do not have to be confrontational, but you can be firm and resolute. Insist that the issue is important and should be addressed. If the other party still refuses to recognize the issue, at least you know you tried before taking other routes. In any discussion of problems or issues, it is important to ensure that you have under- stood the other person’s point of view. As the discussion of attributions in Chapter 2 showed, there is a tendency to assume that our own points of view are more valid than those of the other party. Attribution processes also encourage us to place blame on oth- ers, while not assigning it to ourselves. And these tendencies are heightened when social Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. identities are salient and the other party is from a different social group. It is important to keep these tendencies in mind and try to correct for them. A helpful tactic is to reflect on the other parties’ statements to see if you understood them properly. This is done by phrasing what you believe the other party is saying in your own terms and asking him or her if your understanding is correct. In response to the previous problem statement, we might say: “So what you’re getting at is that you think I don’t acknowledge your contributions to the project adequately. Do I understand you correctly?” This gives the other party a chance to explain further. It also prevents you from acting on incorrect assumptions or incorrect information. Finally, it has the benefit of giving you some time to collect yourself. It is difficult to be confronted with a problem, and if we feel threatened or hurt, and these feelings flood us, we are likely to react in a coun- terproductive way. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  240 Managing Conflict 8.2.2 Rethinking How Problems Are Defined A key barrier to managing conflict is that parties may not be able to agree on a problem definition. One option is to use a complex definition that includes all issues and then try to come up with a solution or a package of solutions that resolves most or all of them. Another option is to try to reframe the conflict to develop a shared definition (Putnam, 2010). In response to this need, Volkema (1981, 1983) developed the Problem-Purpose Expan- sion (PPE) Technique to help parties recognize and transcend narrow thinking in their framing of issues and problems. Volkema argues that the effectiveness of any conflict management strategy depends on how parties formulate the problems they face. Prob- lem formulation has at least two effects on conflict. First, it channels parties’ thinking and can severely limit the range of solutions considered. In the Creativity Development Committee case (Case Study 5.3, p. 155), the major problem was expressed as selection of the best possible procedure for making decisions in the research meetings. This for- mulation of the problem constrained members to search for a single procedure to be used by all project teams, which eventually worsened the conflict. How this problem was formulated implicitly ruled out several solutions that would have allowed members to work on common grounds, such as adopting two procedures and testing each in half of the project teams or adopting several procedures and allowing the project directors to choose whichever they liked best. As we have seen, people tend to prematurely converge on solutions, and an overly narrow problem formulation encourages this. Second, problem formulation also affects parties’ motivation when a conflict emerges. How the research committee formulated its problem sets up a win-lose situation once members became divided over the two candidate programs. Because only one program could be adopted in this approach, a win-lose fight became inevitable, with the manager ultimately forcing his preferred solution. Volkema shows that problem formulations vary along a continuum from narrow to broad. For the Creativity Development Committee, the formulation, “selection of Tom’s procedure for the project teams,” would be the narrowest scope possible because it focuses on a single solution and specifies what must be done. The alternative prob- lem formulation, “selection of the best possible procedure for making decisions in the research meetings,” is broader than the first. Note that the second formulation admits a greater number of possible solutions than the first because it does not specify which procedure should be chosen and opens a range of possibilities. The second formulation also focuses attention on a different set of actions than does the first. With the first formulation, parties are likely to focus on how they can get project teams to like Tom’s Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. procedure. With the second, they are likely to concentrate on searching for alternative procedures and choosing one. A still broader problem formulation than the second would be the following: “selec- tion of the best possible procedures that can be used by the teams.” Broader still is this: “to make the best possible decisions in the project teams.” Both formulations open up a wider range of possibilities and imply different actions than do the first two (indeed, the fourth opens up the possibility of discarding the procedures altogether, if members agree it is impossible to find a good one). Shifting levels of abstraction in how problems get defined has been shown to support creative thinking and greater flexibility in nego- tiations (Putnam, 2010). Volkema argues that some levels of formulation promote more creative and effec- tive solutions than others. Exactly which formulations are best varies depending on the parties, the nature of the conflict, the surrounding environment, and other factors. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  Managing Conflict 241 In general, it is difficult to identify the best formulations. However, when parties are stuck, it is often possible that they have not explored alternative and more creative ways of defining their problems. Identification of the problem formulations being used in a conflict is a complex pro- cess. For one thing, problems are not always explicitly stated. Sometimes, in fact, people consciously avoid clear problem statements in an attempt to keep conflicts suppressed. In such cases, problem definitions can be inferred by listening to discussions. Figuring out the definition is fairly easy once one is familiar with some examples of problem formulations. An additional complication is introduced by the fact that problem for- mulations may change as the group works on an issue. In the Creativity Development Committee (Case Study 5.3), the problem was initially “selection of the best possible decision-making procedure for the project teams,” but over time it shifted to “should we adopt the manager’s preference?” which implied confrontation. Clearly, these shifts reflect significant occurrences in the conflict and changes in the relationships among members. It is important to be sensitive to these shifts and their implications for the direction conflict takes. The PPE Technique has two basic parts. The first is a format for stating the problem: an infinitive + an object + a qualifier. For example, if the problem is presently thought to be “how to convince the residents of a neighborhood that a sidewalk should be installed along their block,” the problem might be stated as follows: to convince neighbors that a sidewalk is needed Infinitive + Object + Qualifier This statement of the problem then serves as the basis for brainstorming a set of possible solutions (see Table 8.1 for possible solutions associated with this formulation of the problem). The second part of PPE expands the first problem statement by reformulating it, allow- ing for a second round of brainstorming that generates a set of different solutions. Refor- mulation is done by asking the following: What are we trying to accomplish by this? We want (most recent formulation)... to convince neighbors that a sidewalk is needed. In order to (reformulation)... get neighbors to pay for the sidewalk installation. The group might decide it wants to convince neighbors that a sidewalk is needed in order to get neighbors to pay for sidewalk installation. This process is then repeated to generate Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. a whole set of formulations and solutions (see Table 8.1). Comparison of the levels can enable parties to recognize the narrowness in their thinking and the trained incapacities that may be operating. By making parties aware of different formulations, PPE can dis- close the values and assumptions underlying a current way of looking at a problem and suggest innovative viewpoints. The PPE technique can also be used when the problem in question is “about” a rela- tionship or group itself rather than about something people might do. For example, in the Riverdale Halfway House (Case Study 7.1, p. 215), the problem was formulated as how “to resolve the animosities between George and Carole.” PPE might lead to other formulations conducive to constructive dialogue, such as how “to clarify lines of author- ity at Riverdale” or how “to create a more supportive climate at Riverdale.” In both cases these broader reformulations change the focus of the problem from Carole and George to the group and provide a common problem that the entire group can work on. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  242 Managing Conflict Table 8.1 A Hierarchy of Expanded Problem Statements Problem Statements (and a Key Question Possible Solutions to Ask About Them) To convince neighbors that a sidewalk is Gather data; hold public hearings; go door to needed door (What are we trying to accomplish by this?) To get neighbors to pay for sidewalk Go to the Transportation Department; sue installation neighbors; introduce a resolution at City or (What are we trying to accomplish by this?) Town Hall To get a sidewalk installed Pay for sidewalk yourself; install sidewalk (What are we trying to accomplish by this?) yourself To make the area where a sidewalk would go Level off area; build walkway passable (What are we trying to accomplish by this?) To make pedestrian traffic safe Reroute auto traffic; partition off part of (What are we trying to accomplish by this?) street; stop auto traffic for pedestrians; put up caution signs for autos PPE tries to jolt people out of their well-worn, unreflective channels and encourages them to consider new ideas. A former chair of the board of General Motors is reputed to have said during a particularly docile meeting, “well, it appears as if we’re all in agree- ment. Why don’t we all try to work up some conflicts over the weekend so when we come back on Monday, we’ll be able to think this proposal through thoroughly?” The chair’s statement was designed to surprise the other members and jolt them out of their pre- mature agreement. When members return to their task, they may well do so with greater concentration and renewed vigor. A second technique for recasting the definition of the problem is to identify a com- mon goal that both parties value, commonly called a superordinate goal. The Robber’s Cave experiment of Sherif and associates was one of the first studies of this technique (Sherif et al., 1961). They created two opposing groups of summer campers, the Bulldogs and the Red Devils. When the two groups had to work together on the common goal of solving several emergencies, between-group conflict was reduced. Subsequent studies have supported the utility of superordinate goals (Hunger & Stern, 1976; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). To be effective, the goal must be appealing to both parties, and accomplishing it must be beyond the capabilities of any single party. In addition, competition and conflict among parties over other issues must be set aside. So, a couple who often argues about Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. how much to spend on redecorating their house may pull together when threatened by a financial crisis. The common goal of weathering the storm overcomes their perceived differences. As this example illustrates, a superordinate goal need not be something both parties want; it can also be something they want to avoid or a common enemy. From time immemorial, political leaders have used the perception of threats from without to unite factionalized nations. The superordinate goal tactic is one of the most reliable integrative tactics, but it does not work under all circumstances. If the parties fail to attain the superordinate goal, they may discount the goal and competition may ensue (Hunger & Stern, 1976; Worchel, Anderoli, & Folger, 1977). Given their previous conflict, the parties are likely to blame each other for the failure. The tactic will also fail if each party does not have a clear and distinct role in attaining the superordinate goal (Deschamps & Brown, 1983). They must have a clear idea of how Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  Managing Conflict 243 their efforts fit together, or they may lose their sense of identity. If this happens, parties are less likely to be attracted to cooperating with each other. It is also worth noting that parties may have trouble discovering or recognizing superordinate goals when hostilities run high. A “cooling off” period is often necessary before the superordinate goal can be used to promote cooperation (see Case Study 8.1). CASE STUDY 8.1 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION UNIT Imagine yourself as Laura, one of the psychiatrists. How might the climate of this group affect the way you engage in conflict? The Psychological Evaluation Unit at a large hospital was composed of three psychiatrists, a psychologist, and two social workers. The unit was purposely designed as a multidisciplinary cross-section, with competent professionals from all “helping” areas: psychiatry, psychology, and social work. Each pro- fession had to exert its influence if the unit was to function properly. The unit emphasized a high level of professionalism for its members, and because of this, presentation of oneself as a professional was very important. The unit was charged with diagnosing disturbed patients and with running a training program for newly graduated doctors interning at the hospital. The unit was created at a time when the hospital was running budget sur- pluses. The services it provided were originally provided by staff psychiatrists, but the unit was created to consolidate diagnostic techniques and leave the staff psychiatrists free for therapy. However, a “budget crunch” had just occurred, and the hospital board was looking for services and units to cut. Because the evaluation unit was new, it was high on the list of departments to be scrutinized. Members were worried about the unit’s survival, and most decisions were made with an eye toward making the unit look good (or, at least, not look question- able) to outside observers. The psychiatrist who headed the committee, Jerry, chaired most meetings and represented the unit in the hospital bureaucracy. He was a “take-charge” person, and the psychologist and social workers were intimidated by his forceful style. He tried to be open, but, partly due to his strength and partly due to uncer- tainty about their status in the unit, the other three had relatively little input in group discussions. The other two psychiatrists, Alberto and Laura, sometimes provided a balance, but they were not as aggressive as Jerry and therefore tended to be overshadowed. Alberto and Laura were aware of Jerry’s take- Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. charge tendencies and had tried to encourage the psychologist, Paul, and the social workers, Megan and Liu, to speak up. However, all tended to hang back in the face of Jerry’s initiatives. Jerry introduced the issue at hand: The unit was evaluating a psychiatric intern, Max, who had repeatedly missed his turns of duty at evaluation clinics. Jerry gave a brief history of Max’s problems and summarized his attempts to talk to him. In particular, Jerry asked Max what a proper attendance rate should be. Max ventured a “10% absentee” rate as an adequate figure. Jerry intro- duced this figure as a standard and then asked the others, “what do you think?” The psychologist and one social worker, Megan, asked what Max’s excuse was, and Jerry responded with a lengthy answer detailing the excuses and offering commentary on them. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  244 Managing Conflict Laura then spoke, arguing that an absence rate of one day every two months is more than enough. Megan, one of the two social workers, jumped in, and this exchange followed: Megan: You shouldn’t even give him that (once every two months).... I mean, if an emergency comes up that’s one thing. If you say you’re gonna get off... Jerry: (interrupting) This is not.... This is not time that we expect him to take. This is how often we expect emergencies to occur. Megan: But he’s going to interpret it as if we’re gonna give him a day or two every two months if we say it. Jerry: (shaking his head as Megan speaks and speaking immediately on her last word) It depends on how we want to say it, but what we had in mind was, if you look at how often he’s here or not here—it’s sort of a gross way to do an evaluation, but it’s one possibility. And one could say, “If emergencies come up with more frequency, you need more time to attend to your emergencies, and we could make an exception.” How you word it might vary, but I think what we need is some kind of sense for what’s tolerable. Liu: (the other social worker) What about the things he has done when he shows up—expectations as far as staying or leaving early? Which is... I think, one of many things. After his last patients, five or ten minutes later he’s gone. And yesterday that happened and five minutes later we had a walk-in who really needed medical help, and I was the only one there and I could have used (help)... that was, you know, it was like 11:15 and he didn’t show up. Don’t we expect the interns to check to see if there are any walk-ins before they leave? Jerry: (interrupting) We can talk about that as another issue. Liu: (interrupting) Well, it’s another expectation that needs to be addressed. At this point Laura clarified her position on Max’s attendance, and the issue raised by Liu was dropped. Laura and Jerry then pursued a long exchange in which they tried to define an acceptable level of participation for interns. Here is an excerpt from that exchange to give you an idea of its tone. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Laura: (after a long speech)... to vanish from sight (when patients need him), I just don’t find that acceptable. (pause) Jerry: On the other hand, if it’s 11:15, and you don’t have any patients... Laura: (interrupting) That’s a different issue. Jerry: We don’t have to provide any options. We can say that we recog- nize that over a year and a half your participation has been mitigated because of unusual circumstances, and that’s the end. I mean, we don’t have to make a deal at all. As the discussion progressed, the parties tried to settle on an acceptable num- ber of absences for the intern. After some discussion, the group determined that Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  Managing Conflict 245 setting an ideal attendance rate was impossible. Rather, members decided to talk to Max in order to make him aware of the problem and then to reevaluate the situation in two months. Throughout this process Jerry moderated the dis- cussion. The following are excerpts from the discussion: Laura: I guess I agree. I want to give him time off... but if he’s gonna be there, then he has to be there. Jerry: But we have to come up with some kind of sense that if he exceeds we have to say, “Thank you, but no thank you.” Laura: I’d say more than once in two months, or maybe twice in two months more than an hour late. Nobody else does that... that I know of... in terms of missing times. Megan: (talking over Laura’s last sentences) Rather than just specifi- cally making a case for Max, maybe we should decide what’s appropriate—what the expectations are for all the residents. Jerry: (interrupting) I think we are. I think you’re right that the kind of sense we’re generating is not necessarily specific.... It turns out that he’s going to be the one for whom it’s an issue... and we also have to acknowledge that there will be individual circumstances that... change. We may need to face that. But I need to have some type of sense of what we expect of him and at what point we should acknowledge that he should or should not participate. And one way—it’s sort of simple and artificial—is to do attendance, to say, “How many hours are you late? How many times are you late?” That avoids in part coming to grips with, you know, an overall kind of evaluation, and maybe we don’t want to use a numerical scale. I’m open to lots of different suggestions. The one that I wasn’t willing to accept was that if others in the subspecialties used their own inter- nal sets I wasn’t going to ask them to change (e.g., other depart- ments could evaluate the intern according to their own criteria). Alberto: I think there’s a double-barreled threat (from Max’s absences). Dr. Jacobs (director of the hospital) is coming and in casual con- versation says Max is ok when he’s here, but he’s never here, then clearly that’s another, that’s a threat... Jerry: (summarizing the group’s decision) I’m comfortable if what the group wants to do, then, is take it back to Max and say we have a Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. set of expectations that include your participation—your full partic- ipation—in this program. That we will reassess our impression of that participation—and we hope you will assess it—on a monthly basis or something and that if we need to—because there’s some question of whether or not your participation is complete—then we’ll meet and we’ll need to talk about it. Discussion Questions Did this group go through the two stages of the normative model, differen- tiation and integration? Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  246 Managing Conflict Did this group follow the principles for promoting collaboration discussed in this chapter? How might the group have done things differently if they had followed the conflict management procedure outlined earlier? Would Problem-Purpose Expansion be useful for this group? Why or why not? Compare this case to the Women’s Hotline case (Case Study I.1A and B, pp. 2 and 3). Which case exhibited more effective conflict management? 8.2.3 Cultivating a Collaborative Attitude How we approach differentiation also has a strong influence on how the conflict unfolds. A positive, constructive attitude toward disagreement and differences can build confi- dence that the conflict does not have to get out of hand and can be faced constructively. Tjosvold (1995) advanced a model of constructive controversy, which posited that “open discussion of opposing views is most critical for making cooperative situations productive.” This view argues that conflict is essential to effective cooperation—a view that is clearly consistent with the differentiation/integration framework. Underlying it is a positive assumption that from constructively managed conflict can come improved outcomes and better relationships. Based upon a range of concepts that indicate how best to create a collaborative cli- mate, we can suggest the following principles for parties to constructively engage each other during differentiation: Avoid arguing only for your own position. Present your position as clearly and logi- cally as possible, but consider seriously the reactions of the group in any subsequent presentation of the same point. Avoid win-lose stalemates in the discussion of options. Discard the notion that someone must win and someone must lose; when impasses occur, look for the next most acceptable alternative for both parties. Avoid changing your mind only to avoid the conflict and to reach agreement. With- stand pressures to yield that have no objective or logically sound foundation. Strive for enlightened flexibility; avoid outright capitulation. Avoid suppressing conflicts by resorting to voting, averaging, coin flipping, and the like. Treat differences of opinion as indicative of an incomplete sharing of infor- Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. mation and viewpoints, and lack of creativity. Press for additional exploration and investigation. View differences of opinion as both natural and helpful rather than as a hindrance to decision making. Generally, the more ideas expressed, the greater the likelihood of conflict, but the richer the array of resources as well. Search to understand the other parties’ perspective. Do not presume your position is the only correct one. Listen to others’ arguments with an open mind. View initial agreement as suspect. Explore the reasons underlying apparent agree- ments; make sure that people have arrived at similar solutions for either the same basic reasons or complementary reasons before incorporating such solutions into an agreement or decision. Work for mutual benefit, and see yourself and the other parties as being “in this together.” Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  Managing Conflict 247 Show respect for the other parties. Avoid embarrassing or insulting them in ways that make the discussion unnecessarily polarized. These principles encourage parties to air and to address differences rather than to come to agreement quickly. They counteract the tendency to come to premature convergence on a sin- gle solution and reliance on objective standards where none exist. Hall and Watson (1970) and Tjosvold and Huston (1978) have tested these procedures and found that groups trained in these attitudes produced better answers on problem-solving tasks and in team perfor- mance than did untrained groups. In part, this can be attributed to a “synergy bonus” from the procedure; it allowed groups to make use of all their members’ skills and knowledge. The attitude reflected in these principles is useful in all stages of conflict, but partic- ularly so in differentiation. In the face of problems and the hostile and negative state- ments often expressed during differentiation, this attitude offers clear-headed hope that if the parties work together, they can reach a creative solution that acknowledges the needs of all. It offers others a chance to see in the conflict the potential for great improve- ments in the current situation. 8.2.4 Moving From Differentiation to Integration Managing the transition from differentiation to integration is a critical move in produc- tive conflict management. How best to do this depends on the situation. In some cases, both parties are exhausted by competition and tired of its costs. In other cases, tensions are so great that parties can barely stand it. In still other cases, parties who have been steadfastly avoiding conflict are only too aware of this and want to move ahead and deal with the issues. In these cases, parties are likely to welcome a suggestion that they talk and try to resolve the conflict. A conciliatory move by one party is very likely to be accepted by the other party. There are, however, times when it is not clear whether the other party would entertain a move toward collaboration. When this is the case, one strategy is to test the waters, yet not expose yourself too much. If the other responds positively, then you can gradually create a collaborative relationship. One famous model for how to do this is experimental integration. The key to experimen- tal integration is to make a conciliatory or cooperative move, but do not let your guard down so that the other party can take significant advantage. If the other party responds in a positive fashion, then you can answer with more integrative moves and eventually move into full-fledged cooperation. In this approach, the conciliatory or cooperative move is an experiment—it tests how the other will respond. If the other should respond Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. cooperatively, and you can then signal back with another cooperative move, and so on, to gradually bring about integration. The best-known method for experimental integration is Charles Osgood’s Gradu- ated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction strategy (GRIT) (Barash & Webel, 2009; Kramer & Carnevale, 2003; Osgood, 1959, 1962a, 1962b), which was developed for conflicts between nations, but can easily be adapted in more modest form for inter- personal conflicts. The specific points in the GRIT strategy are as follows: 1. The climate for conciliatory initiatives needs to be set by making a general statement of intention to reduce tension through subsequent acts, indicating the advantages to the other party of reciprocating. 2. Every unilateral move should be announced publicly prior to making it, indicating that it is part of a general strategy. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  248 Managing Conflict 3. Each announcement should invite reciprocation from the other. Reciprocation need not come in the form of the same move but should be a conciliatory step of some sort. 4. Each initiative must be carried out as announced without any requirement of recip- rocation by the other. 5. Initiatives should be continued for some time even if the other party does not recip- rocate. This gives one a chance to test the party’s sincerity and puts pressure on the other party to begin to reciprocate. 6. Initiatives must be unambiguous and permit verification. 7. Initiatives must be somewhat risky and vulnerable to exploitation, but they also must not expose the party to a serious or damaging attack. 8. Conciliatory moves should be graded in degree of risk to match the reciprocation of the other party. Once the other party begins to reciprocate, the initiator should reciprocate with at least as risky or slightly more risky moves. The first three points make the initiative clear and may put pressure on other parties to comply with the conciliatory gesture. Points 4 through 6 make it clear to the other party that he or she has the freedom to respond or not, and that this is not a trick or maneu- ver. Point 7 is crucial because it gives the party the security to attempt the experiment. The party stands to lose if the other takes advantage of the move, but the move does not expose his or her position so much that the other party can win the day. Finally, point 8 represents an attempt to gradually increase cooperation. Etzioni (1967), for example, shows how Kennedy and Khrushchev followed a pattern similar to GRIT to bring about the thaw in East-West relations that followed the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other evidence supporting the effectiveness of GRIT is summarized by Kramer and Carnevale (2003). This strategy can be adapted to interpersonal conflicts by omitting point 2, which is only necessary when parties communicate to a broader audience. It tries to capitalize on reciprocity, as discussed in Chapter 3, to move the conflict in a positive direction. Another approach to experimental integration is the reformed sinner strategy (Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977). In this strategy, the party initially competes for a period of time and then shifts over to cooperation. If the other party responds cooperatively, the party con- tinues cooperating, but if the other competes, the party shifts back to competition. In experiments and field studies this strategy has been shown to be effective in inducing the other’s cooperation. Of course, for the strategy to work there must be an incentive for the person responding to the reformed sinner to cooperate rather than exploit the weakness. Thus, the reformed sinner must maintain a “stick” and be prepared to use it again if the “carrot” does not work. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Why does the reformed sinner strategy work? One explanation points to the respect that such a strategy wins for the party. By initially competing, the party demonstrates an ability to punish the other party. Voluntarily giving up the punishment possibility and exposing oneself to the other generates respect and a sense that the party must be sincere in his or her offer of cooperation. The second explanation is simpler than the first and goes hand-in-hand with it: once the other party has experienced the negative consequences of competition, sudden coop- eration will be attractive and motivate the other to cooperate. If this explanation is valid, it implies that the party should take care to make the other recognize the disadvantages of competition and the advantages of cooperation. Sometimes it helps to take a break from the discussion to allow for a cooling off period. We noted that parties sometimes report using mobile phones for this purpose, breaking off a heated discussion to check their messages to lower the intensity of the Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:21:12.  Managing Conflict 249 situation (Caughlin et al., 2016). This can be quite useful, but if the period is too long, the momentum to move into integration may diffuse, and parties may come back with fresh arguments or restatements of old resentments that refuel the flames, leading to a renewal of differentiation. Timing is everything in these cases, but this is also difficult to judge. Once the conflict has been somewhat “tamed,” and parties h