September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 11

How Caring Causes ConflictHow Caring Causes Conflict

Jim BryantJim BryantThe Strategy Studio

and Sheffield Hallam & Warwick Universities

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 22

How Caring Causes ConflictHow Caring Causes Conflict

Conflict-free interaction?Conflict-free interaction?

People’s ‘stands’People’s ‘stands’

Dilemmas of confrontationDilemmas of confrontation

Handling dilemmasHandling dilemmas

Dilemmas of collaborationDilemmas of collaboration

From conflict to co-operationFrom conflict to co-operation

An exampleAn example

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 33

Is conflict is both inevitable and Is conflict is both inevitable and healthy?healthy?

Conflict signifies the commitment of parties Conflict signifies the commitment of parties to a view about how things should be. to a view about how things should be. From this perspective, conflict is not only From this perspective, conflict is not only an inevitable feature of any human an inevitable feature of any human society, but its presence is a healthy sign society, but its presence is a healthy sign of passionate confrontation. This paper of passionate confrontation. This paper will explore the tensions that encourage will explore the tensions that encourage conflict in collaboration conflict in collaboration

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 44

Confronting ComplexityConfronting ComplexityKurt Richardson & Andrew Tait,Kurt Richardson & Andrew Tait, EmergenceEmergence, 2008, 2008

Introduces Confrontation Management as a tool for Introduces Confrontation Management as a tool for modelling and analysis of, and planning within, modelling and analysis of, and planning within, complex social systems.complex social systems.Takes the view that people interact with others to Takes the view that people interact with others to change their intentions in some waychange their intentions in some wayEven when objectives are perfectly aligned, the Even when objectives are perfectly aligned, the potential for divergence creates a shadow potential for divergence creates a shadow confrontationconfrontationPeoples’ behaviour is defined by what they believe Peoples’ behaviour is defined by what they believe others will do – not by what others claim they will do others will do – not by what others claim they will do

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 55

PositionsPositions

A character's POSITION A character's POSITION

is its ‘solution’ to the situationis its ‘solution’ to the situationIn communicating its Position a character states what it In communicating its Position a character states what it

demands from others and what it proposes to do itself if demands from others and what it proposes to do itself if they meet its demands. they meet its demands.

Its Position depends upon a character’s interests and Its Position depends upon a character’s interests and objectives.objectives.

The Position represents a ‘package’ of actions: what is to be done by all The Position represents a ‘package’ of actions: what is to be done by all those involved in the issue: it is a summary of a possible future state of those involved in the issue: it is a summary of a possible future state of affairs. It could be called a ‘Proposition’affairs. It could be called a ‘Proposition’

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 66

Stated IntentionsStated Intentions

A character's STATED INTENTIONS A character's STATED INTENTIONS

are things they tell others that they will do, are things they tell others that they will do, given everyone's Positions and given everyone's Positions and IntentionsIntentions

In communicating its Intentions a character has only to state In communicating its Intentions a character has only to state what it intends to do itselfwhat it intends to do itself

A character’s Intentions may pose a threat to others (if they A character’s Intentions may pose a threat to others (if they aren’t consistent with others' Position(s)) or they may aren’t consistent with others' Position(s)) or they may provide a basis for agreement (if they are)provide a basis for agreement (if they are)

A character’s Stated Intention is sometimes referred to as A character’s Stated Intention is sometimes referred to as its ‘Walk-away Position’ or ‘Bottom Line’its ‘Walk-away Position’ or ‘Bottom Line’

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 77

Expressed DoubtsExpressed Doubts

A character’s EXPRESSED DOUBTS A character’s EXPRESSED DOUBTS

may concern others’ Positions or may concern others’ Positions or IntentionsIntentions::

When a character is sceptical as to whether another’s When a character is sceptical as to whether another’s Intention(s) will (or won’t) be carried out [such doubts are Intention(s) will (or won’t) be carried out [such doubts are current]current]

When a character does not believe that if a particular When a character does not believe that if a particular Position were to be agreed that others would play their Position were to be agreed that others would play their part in sustaining it [such doubts are clearly conditional]part in sustaining it [such doubts are clearly conditional]

A character’s Doubts give rise to ‘crises’ of credibility and trustA character’s Doubts give rise to ‘crises’ of credibility and trust

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 88

StandsStands

A character’s Position, Stated Intentions, andA character’s Position, Stated Intentions, andExpressed Doubts are what it tries to make credible.Expressed Doubts are what it tries to make credible.

Together they constitute its STANDTogether they constitute its STAND..

What characters communicate to each other are their Stands. Stands are What characters communicate to each other are their Stands. Stands are observable. Of course it is perfectly possible that any element of a observable. Of course it is perfectly possible that any element of a character’s Stand may be a falsehood (it may lie about its Position, its character’s Stand may be a falsehood (it may lie about its Position, its Stated Intention may be a bluff, and its Expressed Doubt about an Stated Intention may be a bluff, and its Expressed Doubt about an Intention may be insincere), but that doesn’t matter: the stands are what Intention may be insincere), but that doesn’t matter: the stands are what is common knowledge (everyone knows that everyone knows, etc … is common knowledge (everyone knows that everyone knows, etc … about them)about them)

The conjunction of different character’s Stands may The conjunction of different character’s Stands may create dilemmas for some of themcreate dilemmas for some of them

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 99

Coming together

Sharing perspectives Confronting

The EpisodeThe Episode

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1010

2 dilemmas of confrontation2 dilemmas of confrontation[dilemmas are named for what they make it hard to do][dilemmas are named for what they make it hard to do]

I have a I have a Persuasion DilemmaPersuasion Dilemma with you with you if: if: I do not doubt that you will flout my Position I do not doubt that you will flout my Position EITHEREITHER you won’t say whether you will carry out my Position you won’t say whether you will carry out my Position

OROR you say you won’t and I don’t doubt it. you say you won’t and I don’t doubt it.

I have a I have a Rejection DilemmaRejection Dilemma with you if: with you if:You doubt that I will flout your PositionYou doubt that I will flout your Positionyou don’t believe my assertion that I will carry out a threat or a Position you don’t believe my assertion that I will carry out a threat or a Position

that conflicts with yours (i.e. that I will reject your Position)that conflicts with yours (i.e. that I will reject your Position)

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1111

ConfrontationConfrontation

CONFLICT

STALEMATE

AGREE

Other’s intention

Other’s position

Own

position

Own

intention

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1212

Solving DilemmasSolving Dilemmas

– Characters think they can’t change any more … and they face Characters think they can’t change any more … and they face dilemmas: dilemmas: dilemmas come about because they are taking the frame dilemmas come about because they are taking the frame as fixed.as fixed.

– Character’s emotions well up and cause them to contemplate Character’s emotions well up and cause them to contemplate changes which they would have previously thought impossiblechanges which they would have previously thought impossible

– They can escape their dilemmas by changing the frame, for instance They can escape their dilemmas by changing the frame, for instance by:by:

Thinking of new optionsThinking of new optionsAmending their objectives (and preferences)Amending their objectives (and preferences)Changing Position or IntentionsChanging Position or IntentionsDrawing in (or excluding) other partiesDrawing in (or excluding) other partiesor by other meansor by other means

– These changes are all accompanied by emotion which helps them to These changes are all accompanied by emotion which helps them to shake free of their entrenched viewsshake free of their entrenched views

– Interactions tend to generate the emotion needed for each kind of Interactions tend to generate the emotion needed for each kind of changechange

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1313

EmotionEmotionEmotion shakes characters out of fixed beliefs and values so that they can Emotion shakes characters out of fixed beliefs and values so that they can eliminate dilemmaseliminate dilemmas

– Positive emotion (love, goodwill) is involved when promises Positive emotion (love, goodwill) is involved when promises have to be made credible (to overcome dilemmas of have to be made credible (to overcome dilemmas of agreement)agreement)

– Negative emotion (anger, resentment) is involved when Negative emotion (anger, resentment) is involved when threats have to be made credible (to overcome dilemmas of threats have to be made credible (to overcome dilemmas of disagreement)disagreement)

In the short run, emotion can substitute for, and also motivate, permanent, In the short run, emotion can substitute for, and also motivate, permanent, rationalized changerationalized change

But over-strong emotion indicates that permanent, rationalized change has But over-strong emotion indicates that permanent, rationalized change has not been achievednot been achieved

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1414

Rational ArgumentRational Argument

Rational arguments in the common interest are used:Rational arguments in the common interest are used:– To convince others of changes in your own stanceTo convince others of changes in your own stance– To sway others in their commitmentsTo sway others in their commitments

Rational argument is effective because:Rational argument is effective because:– Any confrontation or collaboration implies some common interest (in Any confrontation or collaboration implies some common interest (in

the issue at hand)the issue at hand)– Rational arguments can be understood and explained to othersRational arguments can be understood and explained to others– They make it easier for the ‘listener’ to shift position (though more They make it easier for the ‘listener’ to shift position (though more

difficult for the ‘speaker’ to do so)difficult for the ‘speaker’ to do so)

The outcome of using rational arguments are:The outcome of using rational arguments are:– The creation of coalitions (i.e. ‘supercharacters’)The creation of coalitions (i.e. ‘supercharacters’)– The ‘cementing’ of new PositionsThe ‘cementing’ of new Positions

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1515

DeceptionDeception

Deception is always possible (emotion or Deception is always possible (emotion or evidence may be faked) and is often temptingevidence may be faked) and is often tempting

The possibility of deception creates disbelief. (The possibility of deception creates disbelief. (The The Paradox of Belief: why believe anyone when their Paradox of Belief: why believe anyone when their saying something implies they want you to believe saying something implies they want you to believe it?)it?)

However:However:– Faking emotion tends to create it and so may lead to Faking emotion tends to create it and so may lead to

genuine changegenuine change– Logic and evidence can compel belief.Logic and evidence can compel belief.

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1616

Coming together

Sharing perspectives Confronting

Collaborating

The EpisodeThe Episode

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1717

The dilemma of collaborationThe dilemma of collaborationdilemmas are named for what they make it hard to do]dilemmas are named for what they make it hard to do]

I have a I have a Trust DilemmaTrust Dilemma with you if: with you if:I doubt that you will support my I doubt that you will support my

Position Position I don’t trust you to carry out your promiseI don’t trust you to carry out your promise

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1818

ResolutionResolution

People reach an agreed resolution and act on People reach an agreed resolution and act on it in good faithit in good faithHaving reached an agreement, some Having reached an agreement, some characters defect from it (or believe that others characters defect from it (or believe that others will, or believe that others believe that others will, or believe that others believe that others will…)will…)People determine to carry out their fallback People determine to carry out their fallback strategies (in the belief that others will, etc.)strategies (in the belief that others will, etc.)Resigned to the conflict, some characters Resigned to the conflict, some characters defect from their fallback actions (or believe defect from their fallback actions (or believe that others will, etc.)that others will, etc.)

These pathological denouements are humorous or ironicThese pathological denouements are humorous or ironic

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 1919

Coming together

Sharing perspectives

Making changes

Confronting

CollaboratingCommitment:

to carry outthreats or promises

The EpisodeThe Episode

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 2020

The war in Georgia: 1The war in Georgia: 1

•Georgia and the West have Persuasion Dilemmas (Threat Mode) with Russia

•Russia has Persuasion Dilemmas (Position Mode) with Georgia

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 2121

The war in Georgia: 2The war in Georgia: 2

Georgia/West’s dilemmas with RussiaGeorgia/West’s dilemmas with Russia

Russia’s dilemmas with GeorgiaRussia’s dilemmas with Georgia

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 2222

Persu

asion

& Reje

ction

Trust

From Conflict to From Conflict to Co-operationCo-operation

STALEMATE

AGREE

CO-OPERATIONSelf

move

Other

move

Self

stay

Other

stay

PARANOIA

CONFLICT

Other’s

intention

Other’s

position

Own

position

Own

intention

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 2323

Coming together

Sharing perspectives

Making changes

Confronting

CollaboratingCommitment:

to carry outthreats or promises

Common PathologiesCommon Pathologies

People deliberately fail to communicate lest

communication lead to or disclose conflict

On discovering that they have differing aspirations,

people go straight into conflict

Having got into conflict, people get stuck

Resolution isn’t achieved because people have unwillingly accepted a

solution to which they are not reconciledPeople experience the tensions

of confrontation but don’t do anything about them – they just

let them fester

September 2008September 2008 CRS Conference, University of KentCRS Conference, University of Kent 2424

Drama theory: sourcesDrama theory: sources Look at these websites:Look at these websites:

http://www.dramatec.comhttp://www.dramatec.comhttp://dilemmasgalore.comhttp://dilemmasgalore.com

Read these:Read these:The Six Dilemmas of Collaboration: interorganisational The Six Dilemmas of Collaboration: interorganisational relationships as dramarelationships as drama by Jim Bryant (Wiley, 2003) by Jim Bryant (Wiley, 2003)Confrontation AnalysisConfrontation Analysis by Nigel Howard (from by Nigel Howard (from http://www.dodccrp.org, 1999)http://www.dodccrp.org, 1999)chapters on DT in chapters on DT in Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Rational Analysis for a Problematic World RevisitedRevisited edited by Jonathan Rosenhead & John Mingers (Wiley, edited by Jonathan Rosenhead & John Mingers (Wiley, 2001)2001)

Keep in touch with me:Keep in touch with me:James.Bryant@wbs.ac.ukJames.Bryant@wbs.ac.uk or or J.W.Bryant@shu.ac.ukJ.W.Bryant@shu.ac.uk