Getting Quality Resolutions from Conflict Irma Tyler-Wood Those of us who work in the field of conflict resolution use two words very often: process -- which is how you go about resolving the conflict -- and substance -- which is what the conflict is about. And I believe very strongly that the process you use, how you go about resolving the conflict determines, 1) whether you even resolve it, and 2) the quality of the resolution. So I‘m going to talk with you today about the three most common processes people use -- by the way, none of which I would recommend -- and then a process that I think will ensure a quality resolution to any important conflict you‘re dealing with. The first you‘ll all be familiar with: If you look at congress, if you look at labor management, if you look at lawyers in a court, it‘s what we call the positional process. I take a position -- a rigid and flexible demand; you take a position -- a rigid and flexible demand; we spend months, sometimes years, hammering back and forth, each of us trying to persuade the other that "I‘m right." And generally, it takes a lot of time, it ruins the working relationship and only if one or more of the parties has greater power, do you get a resolution. Now, the problem with getting a resolution, because you have the most power, if you need to depend on that person to implement, if you need them to work without you there, with enthusiasm and conviction and ownership, if you cram the answer down their throat, you‘re going to have a lot of problem implementing it. So staking out positions and rigidly hammering at each other until one wins by sort of beating the other down, is not going to produce a quality result that will be easy to implement when you have conflict. The second process that is very common is what I think people who call themselves reasonable use. It‘s called the concessional process. They walk into any conflict and they take a position, but inside themselves they‘re saying, "Well, I know I have to compromise. I know I have to give up something. I know I need to move a little bit, so how do I make the concession that gives up the least and gets me the most?" So then the process is focused on what are you willing to give up, to concede, rather than what is it we want to create to get a quality resolution to this conflict? This process wastes time. You lie a lot because on day one you said, "Not a penny more," and five days later, you‘re saying, "Not a penny less." And so people learn the game that you‘re playing and then they play it better than you do. Most importantly, the concessional process produces a sub-optimal resolution of the conflict. Both parties walk away unhappy with the solution. Our congress does this a lot. The third process that I think is very common in organizations and in families is what I call the avoidance process. "Let‘s just pretend there is no conflict. We‘re all on the same team, let‘s not fight." Well, you all know the problem with that kind of process. Number one, important issues don‘t get resolved. Number two, the conflict is building and building. And number three, when it finally explodes, it‘s going to be a lot worse than if you had dealt with the conflict when it was small. I think conflict resolution is a process like a lot of other important things. No one gives us information about how to do it and so we do what we learn from our parents, our community, our culture. The process I recommend instead of avoiding it, being positional, or giving up concessions is to actually use what the Harvard Negotiation Project has developed called the Seven Element Conflict Resolution Process. And you begin by focusing on communication and relationship. I call this the oil that makes the conflict resolution machinery work. I have yet to deal with a conflict situation in which if the people were able to communicate effectively, and who trusted and respected and worked well together, they couldn‘t resolve the conflict on their own. So the first thing you want to check when you‘re in conflict is what is the working relationship like? Do we have trust? Are we able to communicate clearly and candidly? If you are not, address it, put it on the table. The second thing you want to do is develop some ground rules and a process for dealing with the issues you have to resolve. And then instead of talking about positions or concessions, talk about interests that both parties have, talk about options for mutual gain, talk about legitimate objective standards for choosing among the options and then and only then, can you make a decision about what is wise way to resolve a conflict.
Posted on: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:10:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015