C ONFLICT C OMMUNICATION Part II. C HAPTER 8 Anger.

CONFLICT COMMUNICATIONPart II

CHAPTER 8Anger

ANGER

What is Anger? Anger is important—large effects on social

relationships Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure

Antagonism and rage are synonymous Different from hurt or irritated May lead to revenge and/or violence Anger can sometimes be used constructively

*MISCONCEPTIONS

We are not capable of controlling destructive anger

Uncontrolled and destructive anger expression is natural

Uncontrolled and destructive anger expression is a force that must be “released” E.g. “venting,” “letting off steam,” ”blow your

top” Others cause our anger

ANGER

Most common between close ties More contact More caring about the actions/feelings of the

other Greater interdependence

Relationship success matters more More confident that expression is acceptable

Greater predictability

ANGER

• Anger manifestations:– 1. One type occurs instantly with no malice or

forethought• Even in people not generally viewed as hostile or

aggressive.

– 2. Another form festers away over time• Revenge.

– 3. A third type is attached to one’s personality: trait-like• Beneath the surface• Can quickly manifest when individuals feel pressured,

defensive, attacked, told what to do (control)

ANGER

Type 3: trait-like anger: Enduring disposition to experiencing anger more

frequently, more intensely, and for a longer Often tuned to anger-related words Responds to anger words more quickly than to other

emotion words People who have low-anger trait tend to

spontaneously reframe the circumstances in ways that deflect or inhibit their anger

ANGER

• Different sources of anger: loss of control, frustration, fear, insecurity, loss, sadness

• Men and women experience it differently– Men: anger is empowering—they have power

and it gives them more– Women: emerges out of feelings of frustration

and powerlessness• As people age:

– Less likely to exhibit trait anger.– Anger for older adults (~50s and up) is less

frequent and less intense– Less overt displays of anger

ANGER

Managing Anger: Three Different Ways of Expressing or Not

Expressing One’s Anger: “Anger-Ins” (hold it in) “Anger-outs” (express it) “Anger controllers” (manage it)

ANGER

Anger-ins: Difficulty in admitting that they are angry Know that they are angry but don’t want to tell

the other person Tell others about their anger Generally passive aggressive.

ANGER

Anger-outs: Automatic reactions, quick to criticize, blame,

and accuse Minor aggressive acts such as bickering Verbal aggression Physical aggression, force

ANGER

• Anger controllers:– Think positively about conflict

• Use techniques to better manage it

– Collaborate and work together toward mutually satisfactory solutions

– Use the S-TLC system– Negotiate rather than compete– Manage the conflict climate and stress levels– Use assertive communication behavior

• Employ the steps of the interpersonal confrontation ritual

ANGER

• Interpersonal confrontation ritual:– Identify problem(s)/needs/issues

• Be honest, be complete• Many people can’t remember what they were fighting

about

– Signal the need to talk• In a way that doesn’t threaten face or inflame

– Confront: talk about your problem• Be assertive, not aggressive

– Listen to feedback– Resolve: seek mutual agreement

• Seek compromise as a last resort

– Follow up: set a time/place

ANGER

• What to do before expressing (or withholding) anger– *Take time out– Use relaxation exercises– *Engage in self-talk– Seek alternative ways to release anger– *Uncover the emotion that is disguised as anger– *See your part in the problem– *Mentally switch places with the other

ANGER

• If you must expressing anger: do it effectively– Don’t: yell, make threatening gestures, curse or

swear, threaten, mock, or use alcohol as a means of courage

– Express after cooling down– Direct at the target– Restore a sense of justice– Regain control– Don’t invite retaliation– Anticipate the effect of your words and actions– Try to keep the other focused on the here and

now

ANGER

If another is the one in anger: Remain calm Acknowledge the source of anger Listen and reflect Walk away if necessary

But promise to engage later

MANAGING “FACE”Chapter 9

CONFLICT AND FACE ISSUES

• What is it?– Impression or “image” people have of

themselves• *Based on the approval and acceptance of others• “Looking glass self”

– Isn’t necessarily very accurate– One of our most valuable possessions– Often very fragile– Heavily guarded; well defended

• All this is “impression management”


Fundamental assumption: People are motivated to create and maintain

impressions of themselves (core of many conflict situations)

Demands of “face”: Create and sustain self-identity; create, protect,

and maintain others’ identities When people lose face: shame (self-focused)

and/or guilt (behavior-focused) May also seek retaliation


Positive face: A positive and consistent self image that is

accepted by the group, peers, others We want to feel that others approve and agree

with this (somewhat fictional) self image Desire to be liked and admired Relates to self-esteem issues


• Face-threatening act: acts that conflict with the face wants and needs

• Autonomous face (also “negative face”):– I’m in control of my fate, responsible; mature– I’m self-sufficient, independent, reliable– May be seen as “silent leaders”

• “I’m part of the team, but I lead by example”

– Impose on my freedom to be in control: face threat (respond with defensiveness)– Psychological reactance


What triggers negative face threats? Threat, order, warning, request, reminder,

suggestion, advice, promise, expressions of admiration, envy, hated, lust

We can signal that we have weak negative face: Expressing thanks, accepting thanks, accepting

an apology, accepting an excuse, accepting an offer

OTHER “FACE” CONCEPTS

Fellowship face: Need to be seen as a valued member of the

group Focus on cohesiveness, equal participation, etc. Don’t stand out from the others

Competence face Our desire to be identified with a role

E.g. I’m the computer expert. I’m very competent I want to be seen as reliable by my peers Threaten: defensiveness


Protecting others’ autonomy face: Ask open-ended questions Listen without judging Explore options Don’t exclude others


Facework: Establish/maintain impressions of ourselves to

others; support or deny the impressions that others are making

"the communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or challenge another person's face" (Masumoto, Oetzel, Takai, Ting-Toomey, & Yokochi, 2000).


Preventive facework—tactics See the situation from the other’s perspective

How does the issue affect the other and the other’s self-image?

Initially (at least) accept what the other person says at “face” value

Accept the other person’s right to change his or her mind

Avoid face-threatening topics; use communication practices that minimize threats to face.


Preventive facework—tactics Use politeness and disclaimers

Hedging: indicate uncertainty and receptivity to suggestions

Cognitive disclaimer: asserting that the behavior is reasonable and under control, despite appearances

Credentialing: indicating you have good reasons and appropriate qualifications for your statements

Sin license: indicating that this is an appropriate occasion to violate the rule; not a character defect.

Appeal for suspended judgment: asking the other to withhold judgment until it is explained.


Supportive Facework helps reinforce the way the other is presenting himself or herself 1. Do I try to make the other feel important? 2. Do I try to make the other look good to other

people? 3. Do I try to make the other think that they are

winning? 4. Do I try to make the other feel secure? 5. Do I try to make the other believe that I am

honest and trustworthy?


Corrective Facework : statements meant to ameliorate the effect of face-threatening messages 1. People overestimate their own level of

cooperation and underestimate the other person’s

2. Scanning: checking out the perceptions created Question the other to confirm

3. Explaining: used when we perceive that the other has not taken our message in the way we meant it


Repair Sequence (ritual) 1. Offending situation: the other’s behavior is

perceived as intentional and hurtful Whether accurate or not Face threatening: hard to continue until addressed

2. Reproach: request for an explanation of an offense from the one offended Verbal, nonverbal, aggressive, passive-aggressive If perception (step 1) is inaccurate, this can be a

trigger


Repair Sequence (continued) 3. Remedy (account):

Refuse to act or even note (most unsatisfying) Provide an account (explanation: excuse or

justification) Concessions admit the offender’s guilt and offer

restitution Apologies are admissions of blameworthiness and

regret on the part of the offender supplied by an offender

4. Acknowledgment: evaluation of the account supplied by the one offended We’re even, we’re OK, I accept your reason Or, rejection of the remedy

IMAGE RESTORATION REMEDIES

Excuse Impairment, diminished responsibility,

scapegoat status, victim of sad circumstances, etc.

Justification No harm occurred, it was deserved, other

people do it, I meant well, I had a responsibility to do it

Concession I admit it, let me make it up

Apology I admit it, and I truly regret it

Weak restore

Strong restore

APOLOGIES

Admission of blameworthiness AND regret Request for pardon, self-castigation, help Offender wants to restore positive face Appearance of a genuine apology can lessen

emotional state of those with high trait hostility


Conflict And Impression Management In Cyberspace Attractiveness of friends who leave messages on

person’s wall in Facebook affects impressions of that person’s attractiveness

Comments made by others about a person on his or her profile are more influential in creating impressions than self-made statements

Facebook used more by socially adept people to strengthen relationships than by socially anxious people to create them


Responding to Others Results indicate that apologies and/or offering

some corrective action were seen as the most appropriate and effective ways to restore one’s image


Conflict And Impression Management In Cyberspace In their study of online conflict, Smith,

McLaughlin, and Osborne found that few people replied to reproaches and seldom completed the traditional repair sequence

Negative conflict behaviors were more frequent in CMC than FTF

Higher levels of avoidance and lower levels of forcing in computer-mediated negotiation

FORGIVENESSChapter 10

FORGIVENESS

Is there an event in your life that you find difficult to forgive? Why? What would it take for you to forgive? What are the consequences of forgiving? What have been the consequences of not

forgiving?

FORGIVENESS

Most important part of conflict management Only way to transform the meaning of the event Only way to minimize the likelihood of repeating

the event Repeats become more destructive with each iteration

Not needed in every conflict situation Depends on intimacy of relationship, degree of

outcome importance Conscious decision to reduce our focus on the

event We decide not to change the future based on the past We decide to move beyond “victimization”

FORGIVENESS

Reconciliation: The process of restoring a damaged relationship

(creating a new one, more accurately) Forgiving and reconciling are not the same

We can forgive, but choose not to reconcile (or even let them know we forgive)

Forgiving and reconciling are not one-time events We tend to return to them cognitively and

emotionally We deal with different parts over time

Competent conflict managers use forgiveness and reconciliation strategies effectively Develop a repertoire of responses

Without competence in forgiveness and reconciliation skills, relationships will end

And generate history, feelings, and other effects that persist

FORGIVENESS

Relational Transgressions Concern core relational rules

Expectations about the way we should behave toward others and the way they should behave toward us

We assume a truth bias toward friends and lovers.

Deception: deliberately altering information to change a person’s perceptions

We assume a helping orientation toward friends and lovers

Violations leave strong emotional residues

FORGIVENESS

Forgiveness: cognitive process; letting go of feelings of revenge and desires to retaliate. Aids in transforming the meaning of the event, or

changing the way we view the event and the person Reframing is key

Unforgiveness: cognitive process; not letting go of feeling of revenge and retaliation

Revenge: “an eye for an eye.” Reconciliation: behavioral process; actions

to restore a relationship or create a new one Distinct from forgiveness.

FORGIVENESS

Advantages Of Forgiveness Mental Health

Raises self-esteem and lowers depression Physical Health

Unforgiveness creates stress; harsh long-term effects Higher levels of pain for trait-based unforgiveness

Widely demonstrated links to cardiovascular health

Why don’t we forgive? Other hasn’t admitted wrongdoing, apology

insincere, desire to be a victim Empathy skill leads to higher levels of forgiveness

Age—younger (college age study) = harder Don’t know how, no support

FORGIVENESS

Working through forgiveness Can be taught: it’s a skill

Levels of Forgiveness Forgiveness for own sake (it’s healthy, feels

better) Forgiveness because of empathy: understanding

that the other needs forgiveness, or… Forgiveness for the sake of the relationship (not

necessarily the other or self) Higher level of empathy: he/she is “like me”

(difficult) Even higher level of empathy: “I am like him/her”

(most difficult) I could do this to others, too

FORGIVENESS

Working Through Reconciliation (optional) Levels of Reconciliation

No reconciliation: repression, victim status, low trust, bitterness

Possible reconciliation: Usually after admission

Conditional reconciliation After expression of regret and apology

Processual reconciliation Some attempt at a remedy

Restoration

FORGIVENESS

Working Through Reconciliation (cont.) Steps toward Reconciliation

1: Account and apology (we usually need these to proceed)

2: Acceptance of account and apology or its absence We must reframe the other and the event

3: Forgiveness may or may not be verbally communicated We may simply act as though it’s forgiven

4: Transforming the relationship, if desired Less intimate, more intimate, different type of

relationship 5: Actions confirm forgiveness and reconciliation

Beware negative self-fulfilling prophecies: we can create the behaviors in the other we expect to see

Create positive self-fulfilling prophecies

FORGIVENESS

Working Through Reconciliation (cont.) Forgiveness and reconciliation feed each other in

ongoing relationships: After forgiving one another, we tell each other that the

act is forgiven, which allows us to act without reference to the offense

In turn, we feel better about our relationship and can talk about our relationship without reference to the offense.

In turn, actions confirm words which creates the reality of our forgiveness.

FORGIVENESS

Moving Beyond Victimization: We tend to want to find someone to blame (not

ourselves) Sometimes, we must forgive without

communication When reconciliation is not safe, not possible, not

desired by you. Not desired by the transgressor, etc. In these cases, any expression of anger, hurt, etc. may

make it worse: we can’t risk the vulnerability We learn to “move on”; drop the baggage Seeking revenge hurts us more We MUST do this if we want to continue interaction

Sometimes realize that, like us, the other is doing the best that he/she can

FORGIVENESS

Seeking forgiveness (offender initiated) Offender experiences feelings of shame and guilt

for the offense Offender makes a decision to seek forgiveness Offender expresses remorse and repentance

Victim should recognize that this is humbling, it puts the offender in a vulnerable position

Final stage of seeking forgiveness: waiting Difficult Tell ourselves that we did all we could

MEDIATIONChapter 11

MEDIATION

Shift from dealing with our own conflicts to helping others resolve theirs

When should we (do we) intervene? When people can’t/won’t do it themselves

Mediator/mediation is not: Conciliation, ombudsperson, arbitration, and

adjudication/litigation Mediators are unbiased third parties who

facilitate communication between conflicting parties Parties work out their own agreement

DISPUTEWhen those involved cannot work out the conflict by themselves

A conflict does not necessarily result in a dispute

WHY MEDIATION OR OTHER ADRS?

High case load in the courts Less expensive than litigation

Often compulsory Greater level of confidentiality Greater level of control of those involved in

the process

MEDIATION

Typical mediation; 1. One or both disputants seek mediation or a

mediator talk them into it. 2. The mediator brings the disputants together

and makes an opening statement. 3. Following the opening statement, each person

takes a few minutes to describe the dispute from his or her point of view without interruption.

4. The mediator finds common ground on which to build agreement.

5. The mediator writes up the final agreement. 6. The mediator ends the mediation.

MEDIATION

Terms: ADR: alternatives to dispute resolution Adjudication: neutral judge and jury hear both

sides and decide (ADR) Either side can appeal

Arbitration: neutral third party hears both sides and makes the decision (ADR) More binding that adjudication (can’t appeal)

Ombudsperson: an ADR where one side has a person that “cuts through the red tape” (usually when dealing with governmental agencies)

Caucus: when the mediator talks to one side alone

MEDIATION

Conciliation: (ADR) neutral third party practices “shuttle diplomacy” by traveling back and forth between conflicting parties unable to meet

Mediation: (ADR) neutral third party facilitates communication between the conflicting parties; they work out mutually acceptable agreement Mediators have no decision-making power

MEDIATION

Mediation reduces the BATNA of the disputants Mediators help to restore communication and

normalize relations Mediation allows for full participation by the

conflicting parties Mediation has a high success rate (80%)

Formal versus Informal Mediation Formal: satisfactory agreements are often

worked out at a single session lasting 1–3 hours Informal: people can help others without their

being formally trained and certified.

MEDIATION

The Role of the Mediator The “principle of three” effect

Two parties: encourages win/lose. Third person signals the public/social attention (face pressure)

A mediator has no decision-making power regarding the outcome of the mediation

The mediator should develop a “subjective neutrality” Honors the validity and truth of each person’s story

without deciding who is right or wrong Mediators must maintain confidentiality Mediators must give equal time/treatment Mediators should not be close with either party

MEDIATION

Mediators must be competent in communication Be descriptive, not judgmental (e.g., “It seems like

you are raising your voice,” versus “It sounds like you are angry”)

Be specific (e.g., “You say you are bothered you are by your colleague’s work habits. What specific habits?”)

Focus only on behaviors that one can change Give timely feedback when it is requested, as close

as possible to the behavior being discussed Speak only for yourself (e.g., “I understand you to

say…” “I take it that you feel…” “I want you both to…” “I prefer to keep my opinions to myself.”)

Check what you see or hear with the other parties

MEDIATION

Mediators encourage cooperation and discourage competition between the parties

Mediators as Communication Rules Enforcers Rules are obligations and prohibitions (what we

may and may not say in certain situations). In opening statements, mediators define the

communication rules for the mediation. They enforce those communication rules. They steer the disputants through the steps of

mediation. They manage the tone of the discussion. They ask disputants to change focus when needed;

keep them on task

TYPICAL RULES Taking turns to talk without interruptions Talking without expressing hostility to one another Creating a positive climate; no put-downs Focusing on the future (what the parties will do)

rather than the past (what was done) Striving for a win–win solution (no one feeling

dissatisfied or agreeing to something unacceptable) Focus on solving the problem rather than attacking

or blaming the other person Being honest and sharing thoughts and feelings

without fear of criticism or publicity Adhering to time constraints/other rules set by

mediator

THE MEDIATION PROCESS:

1. One or both disputants seek mediation, or mediators talk them into it (the intake process).

2. The mediators bring the disputants together and make an opening statement, which includes:

Participation in mediation is voluntary and the mediator or conflicting parties may terminate it at any time

The mediator is unbiased What is said in mediation is confidential That the goal is a written agreement with which

both parties are satisfied or at least comfortable

MEDIATION: OPENING STATEMENTS

That the mediator is an unbiased facilitator of discussion and does not make decisions

That the parties should talk to and look at one another rather than at the mediator.

That the parties will take turns talking without interruptions (nonverbal either)

That the parties must adhere to time constraints set by the mediator

That the parties strive to solve the problem rather than attack, blame, express hostility

MEDIATION: OPENING STATEMENTS

That a positive climate with no put-downs will be enforces

That focus will be on the future That they can openly share thoughts and

feelings without fear of criticism or publicity That a win–win solution is the target (define as

no one feeling dissatisfied or agreeing to something either party finds unacceptable)

That the parties agree to abide by additional rules as announced by the mediator during the session.

MEDIATION

3. Following the opening statements, each person to takes a few minutes to describe the dispute without interruption

Sometimes it is useful for mediators to caucus Their may be some information that one disputant

doesn’t want to reveal in the presence of the other Caucus should be offered to the other side

4. Find common ground (to build agreement on)

Use fractionation, framing (posing good questions with no blame language), reframing (mediators restate negatively loaded, biased, or accusatory statements) Helps the disputants look at the issues differently

MEDIATION

Final Agreement: A list of behavioral commitments that

enumerates specific observable actions each party needs to take to fulfill the agreement

Ending the Mediation Each disputant receives a copy of the

handwritten, signed agreement. If appropriate, the mediators set up a date for reviewing and evaluating the agreement

Mediators thank the parties and wish them well Unlike formal mediation, in informal mediation, no

need to file paperwork, have typewritten agreements, etc.

HTTP://WWW.LAW.HARVARD.EDU/MEDIA/2001/09/14/PON_STLD.MOV

VIDEO: Typical Mediation

CHAPTER 12Managing Conflict from a Theoretical Perspective

CONFLICT THEORY

Understanding theories: Not the same as having the skills

Theories allow us to carry skills from one situation to another

Allow us to apply them appropriately within situations A skill is a learnable behavior, a person can improve it

INTRAPERSONAL THEORIES OF CONFLICT

Psychodynamic Theory People experience conflict because of intrapersonal (internal, psychological, emotional, mental) states

Helps explain: Displaced conflict: acted out over the right issue, but

with the wrong person/thing Often a more socially acceptable or weaker target (if

the actual target is highly valued or has greater power)

Misplaced conflict: acted out with the right person, but over the wrong issue Often over “safe” rather than suppressed issue

Overblown conflict: conflict receives more attention than it really deserves Often to release pent-up energy

PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY

The “id”: The unconscious aspect that “contains everything that is

inherited, present at birth, or fixed in the constitution” Contains the libido:

The source of instinctual energy, which demands discharge through various channels

Operates on the “pleasure principle”: Tension-reduction process: tension from a bodily need is

translated into a psychological wish to reduce the tension Seek pleasure and avoid pain: only satisfaction; no regard

for the cost of doing so


The id is in conflict with the superego Perfects and civilizes behavior Suppress all unacceptable id urges Two components:

Ego ideal: the internalized idea of what a person would like to be

Conscience: morals and other judgments concerning correct and incorrect behavior


Ego: mediates between the id and the superego

Governed by the “reality principle”: satisfies the id's desires in realistic and socially appropriate ways

Weighs the costs and benefits before acting

Effects identified by psychodynamic theory Anxiety: tension when people perceive danger Repression: another defense mechanism when

we try not to think about the situation Frustration: results from the internal battle

between the id and superego that often erupts into conflict with others Sources: tension, stress, insecurity, anxiety, hostility,

sexual urges, or depression.

ATTRIBUTION THEORY

People act in conflict situations because of inferences they make about others based on their behavior Internal attributions about another:

E.g.: e.g. he hates, she’s stupid, he’s evil, she’s angry, etc.

Often results in name-calling (you cheat, idiot, lazy, good for nothing, etc.) and assigning blame (it’s all your fault)

External attributions for oneself A way to avoid blame (it’s my parents’ fault that I am

this way, I can’t help that I didn’t go to the right school) Avoid giving credit to others where it is due (e.g. you got

the job because you graduated from the right school)

Attribution Theory Fundamental attribution error: overestimate the

internal factors and underestimate the external factors in perceptions in others’ behaviors E.g.: “Look at what Sue is doing: she’s obviously got no

talent talking to customers” Instead of: “Sue having difficulty making a connection

with customers today. I wonder is she’s feeling the stress from her recent divorce”

Self-serving bias: When we assign our successes to internal factors and our failures to external factors E.g.: I was really good today with my employees; I have

great “people skills.” I had no luck reaching Mike, though; “he’s not a team player”

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

We make decisions based on cost/benefit analyses of outcomes of relationships Benefits and costs: material, social, emotional, intellectual, etc. Relationship viewed as a positive is more likely to progress

towards greater depth/breadth OUTCOME = BENEFITS – COSTS

Perception issue, not reality CL = comparison level = threshold of perceived happiness

from a relationship Depends on our/their history Sequence matters (when the good/bad event occurs) Trends matter (a perceived increase/decrease of good/bad

events) SATISFACTION = OUTCOME - CL

Perception issue, not reality

SOCIAL EXCHANGE CLalt = comparison level of alternatives

How attractive are other choices? What will be the outcome of continuing? Optimum situation when both parties find that:

outcome > CLalt > CL If so, relationship will become deeper

Alternatives: affected by extrinsic and intrinsic factors Extrinsic (outside influences): e.g. where you go to

school Intrinsic (internal influences): e.g. you are shy

DEPENDENCE = OUTCOME - COMPARISON LEVEL OF ALTERNATIVES Perception issue, not reality

CONFLICT THEORY

Social Exchange applied to conflict management Third party intervention may lead a person to

examine the current relationship and perceive inequity in it: creating conflict

Mediator can reframe issues to “redo the math”

GROUP CONFLICTChapter 13

HOW DOES GROUP CONFLICT DIFFER?

Group conflicts are unique Type of interdependence among the parties

Organizational in nature Workplace relationships (boss–employee, colleagues,

department heads, employee–public, etc.) *We are better deception-detectors at work

Familiarity, but less truth bias Group conflicts are distinct from:

Formal grievances: must be resolved by third parties (e.g.: human resources specialists)

Litigation: lawsuits and issues involving regulatory agencies that oversee an organization.

THE NATURE OF CONFLICT IN GROUPS

Types of Conflict Instrumental/task: disagreement between

supervisors and subordinates or among members of a team over how to get a job done

Relationship: power, trust, supportiveness, competition, and IP relationship rules Including those in task-oriented groups

Identity: when face issues are threatened Process: disagreements over the management

style Lack of agreement on departmental or organizational

process goals

THE NATURE OF CONFLICT IN GROUPS

Information processing perspective: Assumes that conflict has a curvilinear

relationship with cognitive flexibility, creative thinking, and problem-solving abilities

At low levels of conflict, groups may not experience enough stress to think actively: may ignore important information.

At high levels of conflict, groups are unable to process information well: performance suffers

GROUP CONFLICT

Conflict acts as a group developer (e.g.: Tuckman’s stages) Forming: confusion over expectations,

uncertainties, power, identity, inclusion, boundary-testing. Conflict is withheld or poorly managed Not much gets done (no productive conflict)

Storming: conflict between belonging and independence. Confusion about goals and purpose, leadership model. Can be short or long Some groups never leave Some groups never leave (minutia-driven): maturity

issue Can be very unpleasant to those averse to conflict Tolerance of others is key to successfully moving on Leaders must not be too restrictive at this stage

GROUP CONFLICT

Tuckman’s stages Norming: all systems operational: productivity

emerges. Members accept roles, purposes, norms Trust and structure stage Unity emerges: start acting like a team, not individuals

Performing: rare: Members are very interdependent, yet are very autonomous: little supervision required Dissent is both allowed and welcomed (provided it is

presented in the accepted fashion) Conflict focuses individuals on outcome-driven action

Termination: mandatory or voluntary dissolution of the group Even the loss of a single member can shift the group

into another stage

WHEN CONFLICT CREATES POOR OUTCOMES

Role Conflict Not just a job assignment: the expected

characteristics of the person who fills the role. Formal role: from the assigned position in a group or

organization Organizational chart or “chain of command” reflects

these formal roles; prescribes who is supposed to report to whom.

Informal roles in groups and organizations arise from the communication and interactions

Both cause conflict

GROUP CONFLICT

Role conflict: Depends of the type of role

Task (usually formal): asking for and giving information, opinions Promotive

Maintenance (formal or informal) confirming others, supportive messages Promotive

Disruptive (informal): self-centered, diverts group off task Could be task and maintenance roles that do not

serve the outcome; they are not promotive, they are disruptive

TOO MUCH COHESIVENESS: GROUPTHINK

“… when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisals of alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1982, p.9)

GROUPTHINK SYMPTOMS

Illusion of invulnerability (optimism): Relieves us of responsibility to make difficult rational

decisions. Also, self-esteem and consistency issues Rationalization (especially negative information) Illusion of morality Stereotyping of outgroup members and leaders

(us against them thinking) Peer pressure: dissent against the group

members that disagree Self-censorship Illusion of unanimity (silence is approval bias) Mindguarding (usually self-appointed)

GROUP CONFLICT

Abilene Paradox Group actions that no one (members) wanted to

take Action anxiety: we often act based on what we believe

others expect us to do Even if we disagree, or we’re wrong about the others.

Supported by: Negative fantasies (perceived risk): unrealistic

visualizations of harmful effects resulting from acting the way we think we should: excuse for not acting.

Fear of separation: ostracism is the most powerful punishment

Real risk: operates no differently from perceived risk Confusion of fantasies and reality: we make the fantasy

reality (self-fulfilling prophecy): Fantasized risk becomes real

GROUP CONFLICT

Lucifer Effect Zimbardo (Stanford Prison Experiment) Usually in unusual, high pressure situations

Circumstances overwhelm the individual The point where we “cross the line“ Often occur when constraints are released

Rules are unquestioned: we obey without thinking We cannot separate “me” from the role expected of us Roles we play become so entwined we no longer think

about what we are doing or what others expect of us

GROUP CONFLICT

Strategies to Resolve Conflict (chapter 3 issues): Contend (compete) Collaborate Avoid Compromise Accommodate

Bias toward cooperation leads most people to try to collaborate

GROUP CONFLICT

Relationship issue: conflict is best avoided Research: avoiding responses to relationship-

oriented conflicts: higher levels of team performance Contending or collaborating responses lowered team

performance overall Avoiding responses better for two reasons:

Relationship conflict is difficult to settle to mutual satisfaction Cooperative and understanding unlikely to solve the

problem; makes it bigger and intractable Collaborating and contending responses direct team

members away from their tasks and teamwork Focus on interpersonal relations: team functioning

and effectiveness suffers

GROUP CONFLICT

Best Practices Develop a habit of cooperation; manage (not

maximize) group cohesiveness Groups that trust one another handle conflict in more

productive terms. Avoid, at least initially, relationship-oriented

conflicts Better resolved over time as team members come to

know one another better. Approach process and task-related conflicts in an

expedient manner, favor collaborating strategies as a way to explore alternatives for future behavior.

MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTChapter 14

MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Effects of organizational conflict: Lowered productivity Less creativity Less innovation Prolonged, unresolved conflict Negative consequences for team members’

health


Organizational Diversity and Conflict: Diversity-based conflict: when personal

characteristics (cultural, ethnic, racial, etc.) are the source

Social category characteristics (age, ethnicity, gender, etc.) and informational characteristics (work experience, education, values, beliefs, etc.) contribute to diversity-based conflict.

Civility as a Response to conflict: Attitude of respect toward others manifested in our

behavior toward them; not predicated on how we feel about them in particular How we act, not think or feel


Civility: Mindfulness of the dignity of the other person in

your sphere at all times The sum of the many sacrifices we are called to

make for the sake of living together Rules for civility at work:

Best words when caught in an unexpected, emotional-charged situation: no words at all.

Use words respectful of the specific listener to whom they are addressed (not some generic “rule”)

Respect the reality of the situation: use temperate, accurate, non-inflammatory, words when describing or commenting on ideas, issues, or persons


Civility: Use objective, nondiscriminatory language that

respects the uniqueness of all individuals. Respect your listeners by using clean language

all the time on the job Civility is two commitments:

(1)Do no harm to others harm; (2) do good for others. When we disagree, civility requires that we be

honest about our differences; manage rather than suppress or ignore them

Civility requires that we come into the presence of others with a sense of gratitude, rather than duty and obligation.


Work-life conflict A. Work–life conflict: a balance between one’s

personal life and the demands of work. Includes: Hours Vacation Childcare Wireless technology Time Roles at work vs. roles at home

WORKPLACE BULLYING: FROM PLAYGROUND TO BOARDROOM

A frequent, enduring abusive interaction distinguished by targets’ inability to defend

Bullying has four specific features: Intensity Repetition Duration Power disparity.

Bullying intends to control or harm others through insults, gossip, criticism, ridicule, etc.

Bullying is a pattern of abuse that persists; The longer the bullying, the greater the harm

(physical, mental, emotional)

MANAGING BULLIES

Reverse discourse Tactics of responding to the bully through

communicative means (e.g. turning an insult into a compliment)

Use of lawyers, outside experts Formal or informal grievance against the bully

E.g. the confrontational ritual presented in chapter 2 Doesn’t always work, particularly at work

Subversive (dis)obedience: passive-aggressive behavior (chapter 3)

Retaliation: hostile gossip and/or fantasies for physically harming or killing the bully

MANAGING BULLIES

Psychological detachment Creating a sense of being away from work

Collective voice When employees talk amongst themselves about

their experiences and what they can do about them

Exodus. works well when one is only in a temporary situation A person can quit, make a threat to quit, put in

for a transfer, or aid others in quitting

SOCIAL CONFLICTChapter 15

SOCIAL CONFLICT INTRODUCTION

Clash of different and conflicting value systems “Intractable issues”

Transcends those involved Clash of social or cultural, religious, political, or

economic philosophies Each party doesn't understand why the other

doesn’t “get it” Slogans and simple answers substitute for

arguments Can descend into violent behavior

@SOCIAL CONFLICT

Intractable issues appear like normal conflict: Fail to agree on their goals; see activities as

incompatible; feel relational rules have been broken Intractable issues add a difference:

Become entrenched in “right and wrong” issues These fundamental assumptions operate below awareness

This is “pluralism” The “socio-cultural reality of discrepant worldviews,

ideologies, and moral frameworks, existing side by side”

We characterize people as other, strange, different from ourselves Fueled by distrust and dislike; self-perpetuating;

difficult to bring to any kind of resolution.

SOCIAL CONFLICT

Understanding intractable issues When conflicts become too entrenched,

participants do not desire communication with the others Resort to static evaluations: name-calling; stereotyping

When involved in intractable conflict: We addresses “the choir” eloquently, with

elaboration and nuance When address “outsiders” in a simplified and

defensive way They become the aggressor, oppressor Violence is sometimes viewed as necessary for self-

protection

SOCIAL CONFLICT

Intractable issues often involve: States or other actors with a long sense of

historical grievance, and a strong desire to redress or avenge

A long period of time Intangibles: identity, sovereignty, values, beliefs Polarized perceptions of hostility and enmity Behavior that is violent and destructive Buffer states that exist between major power

blocks or civilizations Resistance to management efforts History of failed peacemaking efforts

SOCIAL CONFLICT

Silence—ignoring the needs of the other and the other entirely

Group-based hatred: when person or group: Seeks to deny person or group their identity Seeks to deny person or group security, or the

ability to pursue goals E.g. the homeless seeking shelter, abortion protestors

blocking the entrance of clinics Seeks to put themselves ahead of others in the

social, political, or economic structure Seeks to control resources in a win–lose conflict

Where no expansion of resources is possible (Israel and Palestine example)

SOCIAL CONFLICT

Patriotism and nationalism Patriotism: love of one’s country and a

willingness to defend it from invaders Nationalism: love of one’s nation as it will be

once: It has exterminated all its enemies Becomes totally unified Achieves its “grand purpose” of world-historical

destiny

THEORIES OF SOCIAL CONFLICT

Critical theory Understanding situations by analyzing power

relations between participants Uncover oppression, exploitation, and injustice

Oppression: one group or set of groups are able to dominate and exploit another group or set of groups

Exploitation: economic, physical, or psychological

Injustice: perpetrated by dominant social classes Exploitative wage labor, poverty, homelessness, lack

of access to adequate education or health care.


Critical theory The primary method of critical theory is praxis. It

requires: The conflict mediator to examine his or her own

assumptions about the conflict How do values impact the way the conflict is viewed.

The conflict mediator to look for ways in which people are allowed access to the expression of ideas on the conflict Is one group allowed better access than the other? Does one group have more resources than the

other? Does one group have more right to define the

conflict than the other group?


Ripeness theory Occurs when conflict participants realize that

they are involved in a mutually hurting stalemate Neither can get the advantage, and all actions hurt

both self and other) Both recognize a mutually enticing opportunity (both

may gain without giving away something of value). Social exchange: emphasize factors that create

pain for the participants They need to understand that the status quo will

continue to increase pain and suffering Look for factors that can tip the participants

toward “ripeness” by making destructive conflict less attractive and peace more so

WAYS OF APPROACHING THE OTHER

Demonize the other Treating individual or group as

someone/something to be feared and eliminated Romanticize the other

Consider the other as far superior to ourselves. Colonize the others

Treating them as inferior, worthy of pity (perhaps) or (more likely) contempt

Generalize the other Treating people as nonindividuals

WAYS OF APPROACHING THE OTHER

Trivialize the other Ignoring what makes the other different

Not an individual

Homogenize the other Claiming there really is no difference between them

and ourselves Not an individual

Vaporize the other: Refuse to acknowledge the presence of the other at

all (e.g. ignore those who might hand us a leaflet or ask us for money)

Embrace the other (readjust our identities) What kind of “self” do I need to be to live in

harmony?

MANAGING CONFLICT THROUGH NONVIOLENT COMMUNICATION (NVC)

NVC: more than just “civil”; desire to help NVC: make observations (not evaluations),

state needs, make requests (that allow for a “no”) No judgments, force, or demands)

NVC driven by both language AND thinking Compassionate giving (like a spiritual practice: a

desire to help others AND ourselves)

EFFECTIVE COMPLIMENTS

Even saying, “you’re great” is a judgment Often not very effective (may sound like an auto-

response) Worthwhile compliments should be very specific

and behavioral They identify:

The cause: the specific actions that led to the effects

The effects: The particular needs of ours that have been fulfilled The good feelings engendered by the fulfillment of those

needs

Sometimes, a “thank you” is fine, but people appreciate the specifics more

COMPLIMENTS

Compare: “Wow, thanks a lot!” “Wow, I’m so glad you took time out of your day

to walk me through that customer issue. As the new hire, I sure needed some insight from an expert. I feel much less overwhelmed by the job now”

IMPORTANCE OF OUR WORLDVIEWS

Composite of values, beliefs, and attitudes we hold toward the world

Taken-for-granted nature They underlie most intractable issues They blind the participants to alternative views Effect what we observe, how we explain and

describe what we observe, and what we believe we should do What is normal, right, wrong? What are people, what is the nature of nature? What is time? How should we live, get what we need? How important are our groups, and in what way? Is there a God? If so, how does that change things?

CHAPTER 16Creativity and Conflict

CREATIVITY AND CONFLICT

Creativity: a process of making sense of some problem in a new way

Four stages of the creative process: The preparation stage: all previous learning and

any information you gather to address the problem

The incubation stage: period of thinking about the problem—giving it time to take shape and form

The illumination stage: when a particular idea appears in response to the problem

The verification stage: testing the creative response to substantiate the new idea


Traits of Creative People Very few innate differences Courage: willing to risk failure

Allowing for multiple attempts as normal Expressiveness: be ourselves, not fear what (we

think) others think of us Humor: helps us put incongruous ideas together

and see new relationships Intuition: having faith in what we think is a good

idea and how we feel about those ideas. Listening to our “inner voices”


Traits of Creative People Learning from successes, mistakes, and failures

Not hiding failures from our perception Having fun doing what we do

Involves finding fun: a perception, not an objective reality

Willing to ask others for help Not restricted by our pride

Confidently implementing decisions Without second-guessing ourselves


Why is creativity important? More likely to develop mutually satisfying outcomes

in conflict situations Health issues

Effective, creative decisions require Searching for threats and opportunities in situations Identifying the causes of situations Evaluating the risks of the situation Applying intuition and emotion Taking multiple perspectives (genuinely) Considering the time frame for making the decision Working to solve the problem


Misassumptions prevent creativity: Too success orientated due to fear of failure Valuing peer pressure and conformity to much Yielding to sanctions against critical exploration

Too much curiosity is disruptive Overemphasis on sex role Assuming “divergent behavior” is “abnormal”

Like the genius/madness assumption The work/play dichotomy—work is a burden; play

is an end in itself, unrelated to work


Creativity can be learned Best if not domain-specific (e.g.: very general

approach, like brainstorming) Barriers to Creativity

Trained incapacities: when existing talents (good ones) and abilities limit our thinking Too task oriented/goal centered: when it blinds us to

the implications of the outcome: give them space to decide

Redefinition: if we rely only on what “sounds good” Critical thinking: when seen as an attack, or as

“argumentative” (or when it is argumentative) Using objective standards: when it mitigates flexibility,

or when we think of them as the “one right way”

CREATIVITY AS THINKING DIFFERENTLY

Vertical thinking: series of steps, completing one before the next

Lateral thinking: restructuring patterns (insights) and provoking new ones (creativity) Reversal: allow the outcome to drive the process Entry vs. attention area: shift the attention area

from entry point (usually the initiation stage) to other areas (e.g. the triggers, the history, etc.) Different perspectives at each attention area

Six Hats approach: requires one to ask questions from different vantage points


White Hat: information known or needed Who is involved, why, what are the issues, etc.

Red Hat: feelings, hunches, and intuition Focus on feelings about the conflict.

Yellow Hat: focus on values and beliefs Is solution consistent with the person you believe

you are (is it something to be proud of)? Black Hat: the devil’s advocate Green Hat: focus on creativity of viewpoints Blue Hat: macro approach

Are all angles conidered? Are there other ways of achieving the same goal? Is the goal worthwhile?


Consider mind-mapping process Mind-mapping: like brainstorming Non-linear: no start point Brainstorm conflict concepts, then connect them The visual “map” can lead to new insight

Consider visual journaling process Like a visual mind map, but more expressive Image-based response to conflict in our life Allow the free expression to reveal hidden

meaning

C ONFLICT C OMMUNICATION Part II. C HAPTER 8 Anger.

Documents

Transcript of C ONFLICT C OMMUNICATION Part II. C HAPTER 8 Anger.