Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve Conflict

Purpose for presentation is to provide a solution(s) to help resolve conflict found in the workplace.

Topics to be covered are:

What is a conflict? Page 2What are types of conflict? Page 2Can organization(s) design create conflict or eliminate it? Page 3The Abilene Paradox Page 4 to 5Can conflict be managed? Page 6Can conflict be resolved? Page 6Can we manage agreements to resolve conflict? Page 6What is groupthink? Page 6Is trust important to help eliminate conflict? Page 7Does one have a conflict with those one trust? If yes why? Page 7What roles do values play in helping deal with conflict? Page 8How do we establish purpose/goals to help eliminate conflict? Page 9 to 10Can Grace/altruism/forgiveness play a role in eliminating conflict? Page 11What roles do managers/leaders play to reduce conflict in the workplace?

Page 12 and 13

1

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve Conflict

What is Conflict?

Conflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values, and interests. A conflict can be internal (within oneself) or external (between two or more individuals). Conflict as a concept can help explain many aspects of social life such as social disagreement, conflicts of interests, and fights between individuals, groups, or organizations. In political terms, "conflict" can refer to wars, revolutions or other struggles, which may involve the use of force as in the term armed conflict. Without proper social arrangement or resolution, conflicts in social settings can result in stress or tensions among stakeholders. When an interpersonal conflict does occur, its effect is often broader than two individuals involved and can affect many associate people and relationships, in more or less adverse, and sometimes even humorous way (Wikepedia, 2008).

What are types of conflict? Community conflict diplomatic conflict economic conflict emotional conflict environmental resources conflict group conflict ideological conflict international conflict interpersonal conflict intersocietal conflict intrastate conflict (for example civil wars, election campaigns) intrapersonal conflict (though this usually just gets delegated out to psychology) organizational conflict intra-societal conflict military conflict Religious-Based Conflict (for example Center For Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict). Workplace conflict I will concentrate on workplace conflict for this presentation.

2

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve ConflictCan organization(s) design create conflict?

The information system surrounding the group also has a significant effect. The natural flows of information come from the organizational structure of which it is a part, the computer system that partly delivers it, and the friendships and other relationships formed over time. If the information system does not allow people to collaborate effectively, they will continue to remain isolated despite the best organizational charts and teambuilding available. Source,

3

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve ConflictWhat is a Paradox?1. A statement is contrary to common belief.2. A statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but may be true in fact.3. A statement that is self-contradictory in fact and, hence false.4. Something inconsistent with common experience or having contradictory qualities.5. A person who is inconsistent or contradictory in character or behavior.

Abilene Paradox July afternoon in Coleman, Texas 51 miles from Abilene 104 degrees wind blowing fine-grain topsoil through the house things were tolerable - fan going on the porch, cold lemonade and for entertainment - dominoes father-in-law - “let’s get into the car and go to Abilene and eat at the cafeteria I thought - “what in this dust storm & heat; 53 miles; in an un-air-conditioned 1958 Buick Wife chimes in, “Sounds like a great idea,

I would like to go.” I chime in, “Sounds good to me if your mother wants to go.” Mother-in-law, “Of course I want to go, I have not been to Abilene in a long time.” Predictions fulfilled: heat was brutal, coated with a fine layer of dust cemented with perspiration, the food was the first-rate testimonial

for antacid commercials 4 hrs and 106 miles later, hot and exhausted, we return home. To be sociable, I said, “It was a great trip was not it?” No one spoke, until mother-in-law irritably says, “To tell you the truth I would have rather stayed here, I went along because the three

of you wanted to.

The Paradox Organizations frequently take actions in contradiction to what they want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to

achieve. A major corollary of the paradox: the inability to manage agreement is a primary source of organization dysfunction.

4

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve ConflictSymptoms of the Paradox

Organizations members agree privately as individuals, as to the nature of the situation or problem facing the organization. They agree privately as to the steps required to cope with the situation. They fail to communicate their desires/beliefs accurately; do just the opposite, thereby lead one another into misperceiving the

collective reality. With such invalid and inaccurate info, managers make collective decisions to take actions contrary to what they want to do and are

therefore counterproductive. As a result, employees experience frustration, anger, irritation, and dissatisfaction with their organization - from subgroups with trusted

acquaintances and blames other subgroups. Blame authority figures and one another. Finally, if someone does not deal with the generic issue - ??????? - the cycle repeats with greater intensity.

A possible Abilene Bypass1. Once an organization fails to manage its agreements and arrives in Abilene, all members are victims2. It takes a real team effort to drive to Abilene, each person in his manner shares responsibility for the trip3. The orgy of blaming causes the organization to focus on trying to manage (resolve) conflict when it should be focusing on managing

agreement 4. Any organization member who chooses to risk confronting reality possesses the necessary leverage to release the organization from the

grip of the paradox.5. The underlying dynamic of the paradox clearly indicates organization's members know more about issues confronting them than they

do not know.6. Real conflict occurs when people have real differences7. Phony conflict happens in the Abilene Paradox because people agree on the actions they want to take and do the opposite. The resulting

anger, frustration, and scapegoating – generally termed conflict – are not based on real differences8. Members must take accountability for their actions – tell the truth

5

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve ConflictCan conflict be managed?

Can it be resolved?

Can we manage agreements to resolve conflict?

o Business theorists typically believe Managing conflict is one of the greatest challenges faced by any organization, but a consequence of the Abilene Paradox states the INABILITY TO MANAGE AGREEMENT MAY BE THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DYSFUNCTION (Harvey, 1996).

What is groupthink?

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used negatively, with hindsight.

6

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve ConflictIs trust important to help eliminate conflict?

Trust means that one can accurately predict the behavior or actions of another person, based on what one assumes the values of the person to be. One trusts someone to either perform in the way with which one agrees or disagrees.

Culture is an important part of trust, because it is the sum of the group’s values. According to Hofstede, values tell the members of a group those things that are right and wrong, good and evil, etc.

Mutual trust means the leader trusts his or her followers, and the followers trust the leader (Hofstede, 1997).

Does one have a conflict with those one trust? If yes why?

What roles do values play in helping deal with conflict?

Value is a belief, mission, or a philosophy that is meaningful to a person. Whether we are consciously aware of them or not, every individual has some personal values. Values can range from the commonplace, such as the belief in hard work, self-reliance, and punctuality, to more psychological values, such as concern for others, trust in others, and harmony of purpose.

Values are the individuals learned preferences of the members of a group, culture, society, or organization. Values are the overarching, learned preferences common to a group. Values tell the members of the group what is “right” and “wrong” in a given situation, what is “good” and “bad,” “pretty and ugly.” Each value tells the members of a group which choice, in a given circumstance, is preferable. Values are among the first things children learn – not consciously, implicitly. Development psychologists believe by the age of 10; most children have their basic value system firmly in place, and after that age, changes are difficult to make. Because they were acquired so early in their lives, many values remain unconscious and not requiring thought to those who hold them. Therefore they cannot be discussed, nor can they be directly observed by outsiders. Then can only be inferred from the way people act under various circumstances.

Professed Values are the group values, and are sometimes know as accepted values. Professed values are claimed by all or most of the members of the group. However, individuals may not necessarily subscribe to such a value in personal acts. For instance, a person may profess that lying is wrong, but lie when his or her interest requires lying.

Individual Values are those values that a person applies to himself or herself. These values may not always fully agree with professed values. For instance, a person can profess that theft is wrong, but he or she will steal long distance telephone calls, pencils, paper, or some other item from work. Individual values are those by which individual lives.7

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve Conflict

Congruence of values means that values match from one person to another. Just as two or more triangles may be congruent or equal, the values of two or more people are congruent or similar. When values are congruent between people, the value different people hold are the same.Excellent Values to help eliminate conflict and contribute to building trust: SimplicityHarmonyConcern for OthersPracticalityIntegrity, HonestyResults-OrientedHard WorkContinuous Improvement/ProgressRespect for the Individual

How do we establish purpose/goals to help eliminate conflict?

Five basic ways of addressing conflict were identified by Thomas and Kilman in 1976:[1][2]

Accommodation – surrender one's needs and wishes to accommodate the other party. Avoidance – avoid or postpone conflict by ignoring it, changing the subject, etc. Avoidance can be useful as a temporary measure to

buy time or as an expedient means of dealing with very minor, non-recurring conflicts. In more severe cases, conflict avoidance can involve severing a relationship or leaving a group.[3]

Collaboration – work together to find a mutually beneficial solution. While the Thomas Kilman grid views collaboration as the only win-win solution to the conflict, collaboration can also be time-intensive and inappropriate when there is not enough trust, respect or communication among participants for collaboration to occur.

Compromise – find a middle ground in which each party is partially satisfied. Competition – assert one's viewpoint at the potential expense of another. It can be useful when achieving one's objectives outweighs one's concern for the relationships.

8

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve Conflict

Competing

AccommodationAvoiding

CollaborationConcernFor our goals

High

Low

ConcernFor others goals

High

Compromising

“What are the Basic Approaches to Dealing with Conflict?

Avoiding. May be effective when the conflict is temporary, a cooling down period is needed, the risk of engaging is too high, or the conflict is none of one’s concern. Remember, however; avoidance does not solve the problem (a decision needed now), may cause one to miss an opportunity for resolution, and may make the situation worse as time goes on.

Accommodating. Accommodators give in as a way of maintaining harmony. Accommodating may be appropriate to main cohesiveness’ if the issues are not worth spending time on, accommodating requires appeasement, sacrificing one’s values or principles, and putting harmony above dealing with important issues. In such instances, on may lose the opportunity for input, and we may lose the respect of others.

9

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve Conflict Competing. An aggressive approach to conflict assumes the best (or only) way to reach one’s goals is to overrule others. This

approach frequently disregards the concerns of adversaries completely, leaving the losers with pent up resentment eventually leading to father conflict. In some instances, however, the power-based method is appropriate (e.g. in a safety crisis when the issues are not important enough to spend time working it out. Alternatively, when necessary but the unpopular decision must be made. Also, if others are determined to profit at the expense, and one may have no recourse but to fight in self-defense.

Compromising. This approach has aspects of both competing and accommodating. Compromising give up more than competing but less than accommodating. It addresses issues more directly avoiding but does not explore as much as collaborating. Compromising requires cooperation and might mean exchanging concessions, seeking the middle ground, or splitting the difference. Compromising is sometimes appropriate when one have been unable to reach an acceptable agreement through other means, and the choices for resolving the disputes are clearly limited.

Collaborating. The collaborative approach is a commitment to working together to address the conflict. Collaboration is based on the premise it is possible to meet one’s needs and those of others as well. Also, collaboration assumes conflict is a natural part of life, and conflict provides opportunities to work with other to produce resolutions serving both individuals and common interests. As a necessary byproduct of collaborating is – through the process of working together for a solution – better decision results, and the relationship between the disputants is improved. This approach is also known as a concessions-decision method. Still, the collaborative approach is not a panacea. It is time-consuming and does not always result in mutually satisfactory outcomes. Also, effective collaboration requires open sharing, cooperation by everyone involved, and willingness to operate in good faith. Collaborating is often inappropriate when issues are trivial, a quick decision must be made in an emergency, or an expert is required.” U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 8.8.1998, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240 , pp 2-2, & 2-3

Can Grave/altruism/forgiveness play a role to eliminating conflict?

10

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve Conflict

Grace - Is defined as forgiveness raised to the highest level in the form of undeserved favor. Need to Express Altruism (Self-sacrifice) Altruism “getting pleasure from giving to others what you would like to receive” (Harvey, 1988, pg 71).

Cultures whose members express altruism in the form of forgiveness and grace surviveCultures lacking the capacity for altruistic forgiveness and grace die.A secondary effect of GRACE is to inspire by granting the following:

Risk takingInnovationReality testingCommunity buildingHelp create loyalty

Getting pleasure from giving to others what you yourself would like to receive Helps from a psychological perspective:

Integrate reality Interpersonal relationships Private feelings Provides a protective filter for the most searing emotions. Helps us to express empathy and sympathy for others (Harvey, 1988).

Is trust important to help eliminate conflict?

Trust means one can accurately predict the behavior or actions of another person, based on what one assumes the values of the person to be.

One trusts someone to either perform in a way with which one agrees or disagrees.

Culture is an important part of trust, because it is the sum of the group’s values. According to Hofsted, values tell the members of a group those things that are right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Mutual trust means the leader trusts his or her followers, and the followers trust the leader.

References

Harvey, J. (1988) The Abilene paradox: And other meditations on management (1st edition). San Francisco, Jossey-Wales11

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims

Managing Agreements as a Way to Resolve ConflictHofstede, G (1997) Cultures, and organizations: Software of the mind; Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (1st edition)

New York, McGraw-Hill.

Wikipedia On-Line Encyclopedia Web Site. Retrieved September 2nd, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_management

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 8.8.1998, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240 , pp 2-2, & 2-3

12

The material is this document is the intellectual property of Dr. Mike Jernigan and Robert L. Sims