Chapter 10 Managing Conflict

Definitions of Conflict

Hocker & Wilmot (2001)Hocker, J.L., & Wilmot, W.W. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. defined conflictAn expressed struggle between interdependent parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be insufficient. as an expressed struggle between interdependent parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be insufficient. Let’s examine the ingredients in their definition.

First of all, conflict must be expressed. If two members of a group dislike each other or disagree with each other’s viewpoints but never show those sentiments, there’s no conflict.

Second, conflict takes place between or among parties who are interdependent—that is, who need each other to accomplish something. If they can get what they want without each other, they may differ in how they do so, but they won’t come into conflict.

Finally, conflict involves clashes over what people want or over the means for them to achieve it. Party A wants X, whereas party B wants Y. If they either can’t both have what they want at all, or they can’t each have what they want to the degree that they would prefer to, conflict will arise.

When it came to Lou Holtz and the players on his football teams, it’s obvious that Holtz’s views of who should take the field and what plays should be run were not always the same as his players’. In a football game it’s possible to attempt a pass or to execute a run, for instance, but not both on the same play. In this kind of situation, conflict is inevitable and is probably going to be constant.

Consider the case, likewise, of a small group assigned to complete a project in a biology class. One student in the group, Robin, may be a political science major with a new baby at home to attend to. Robin may be taking the course as an elective and want to devote as little time as possible to the project so as to be able to spend family time. Another member of the group, Terry, may be on the pre-med track and feel strong curiosity about the topic of the presentation. If Terry is determined to create a product which earns a high grade and helps get the professor’s recommendation for a summer research internship, then Robin and Terry will experience conflict over how, when, or how hard to work on their project.

As any conflict takes shape, each person brings a combination of perceptions, emotions, and behavior to bear on it. This combination will evolve and change with time, depending on how people interact with each other and with the forces in their environment.

We can’t stop perceiving things in our surroundings. How we perceive others—whether positively or negatively—influences both how we feel about them and how we behave toward them, and vice versa. The perceptions we experience of ourselves and of others affect our emotional states, which in turn create new perceptions in those around us.

At the beginning of the biology course we just mentioned, Robin may perceive Terry as intelligent and as someone who can pull most of the weight in their class project. Robin may compliment and praise Terry at this point, and Terry may glow with the satisfaction of being appreciated. Their mutual perceptions are then positive, and their emotional state is favorable.

When the first deadline in the project comes along and the portion of the group’s work assigned to Robin turns out to be mediocre, however, things will probably change. Terry is apt to start perceiving Robin as a laggard and as a threat to Terry’s own ambitions for the class and beyond. Robin, meanwhile, may feel angry and resist Terry’s pressure to put more energy into the remainder of their assigned work.

Subjects of Conflict

Beyond the setting of the biology class we’ve described, group conflicts may deal with many topics, needs, and elements. Marylin KellyKelly, M.S. (2006). Communication @ work: Ethical, effective, and expressive communication in the workplace. Boston: Pearson. identified the following five subjects of conflict:

First, there are conflicts of substanceConflicts which rest on differing views of the facts and which relate to questions about what choices to make in a given situation. Also known as intrinsic conflicts.. These conflicts, which relate to questions about what choices to make in a given situation, rest on differing views of the facts. If Terry thinks the biology assignment requires an annotated bibliography but Robin believes a simple list of readings will suffice, they’re in a conflict of substance. Another term for this kind of conflict is “intrinsic conflict.”

Conflicts of valueConflicts in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order. are those in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order. The famous sociologist Milton RokeachRokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New York: The Free Press., for instance, found that freedom and equality constitute values in the four major political systems of the past 100 years—communism, fascism, socialism, and capitalism. What differentiated the systems, however, was the degree to which proponents of each system ranked those two key values. According to Rokeach’s analysis, socialism holds both values highly; fascism holds them in low regard; communism values equality over freedom, and capitalism values freedom over equality. As we all know, conflict among proponents of these four political systems preoccupied people and governments for the better part of the twentieth century.

Conflicts of processConflicts over how to reach goals or pursue values which members of a group share. Also known as “task conflicts.” arise when people differ over how to reach goals or pursue values which they share. How closely should they stick to rules and timelines, for instance, and when should they let their hair down and simply brainstorm new ideas? What about when multiple topics and challenges are intertwined; how and when should the group deal with each one? Another term for these disputes is “task conflicts.”

Conflicts of misperceived differencesConflicts which arise when people interpret each other’s actions or emotions erroneously. come up when people interpret each other’s actions or emotions erroneously. You can probably think of several times in your life when you first thought you disagreed with other people but later found out that you’d just misunderstood something they said and that you actually shared a perspective with them. Or perhaps you attributed a different motive to them than what really underlay their actions. One misconception about conflict, however, is that it always arises from misunderstandings. This isn’t the case, however. Robert DoolittleDoolittle, R.J. (1976). Orientations to communication and conflict. Chicago: Science Research Associates. noted that “some of the most serious conflicts occur among individuals and groups who understand each other very well but who strongly disagree.”

The first four kinds of conflict may interact with each other over time, either reinforcing or weakening each other’s impact. They may also ebb and flow according to the topics and conditions a group confronts. Even if they’re dealt with well, however, further emotional and personal kinds of conflict can occur in a group. Relationship conflictsConflicts which involve people’s egos and sense of self-worth., also known as personality clashes, often involve people’s egos and sense of self-worth. Relationship conflicts tend to be particularly difficult to cope with, since they frequently aren’t admitted for what they are. Many times, they arise in a struggle for superiority or status.

Dangers of Conflict

As we’ll see later in this chapter, conflict is a normal component of group interaction and can actually be beneficial if it is identified accurately and controlled properly. It can also be dangerous, however, in several major ways. Galanes & AdamsGalanes, G., & Adams, K. (2013). Effective group discussion: Theory and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. identified three such ways.

The first danger is that individual group members may feel bad. Even when everyone’s intentions are good and they intend to be constructively critical, people who receive negative comments about their ideas or behavior may take those comments personally. If the people feel demeaned or mistreated, their level of trust in other members will probably dwindle.

The second danger is an outgrowth of the first. It is that the cohesiveness of the group can be diminished if its members have to nurse hurt feelings that have arisen through conflict. At the very least, someone who has to wonder whether he or she has the respect of someone else in the group may spend time mulling that question which could otherwise be used to contribute to the group’s work.

The third danger is that conflict can actually split a group apart. Although inertia can sustain a group for long periods of time if no threats or disruptions occur, intense conflict can cause members to decide to invest their energy somewhere else. Relationship conflicts, in particular, may lead to all kinds of unhelpful behavior: rumor-mongering; power plays; backing out on promises; playing favorites; ignoring problems or appeals for help; insulting others; innuendo; backstabbing; or dismissing suggestions without considering them seriously. You’re probably aware of at least a few groups and organizations whose origins were encouraging but which eventually disintegrated because of internal conflict.

A fourth danger is that conflict can deteriorate into physical violence. Some people in the heat of a conflict may forget this saying, which has been attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.”

In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1997). Violence in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/violfs.html. reported that more than one million workplace assaults occurred in the United States annually. More recent statistics from the Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationOccupational Safety and Health Administration. (2012). Workplace violence. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/. suggest that twice that many workers may be subject to violence each year; that 506 workplace homicides were committed in 2010; and that homicide is the leading cause of death for women in American workplaces.

The Leader as Motivator

Just as it takes more than one person to create conflict, it generally requires more than a single individual to resolve it. A leader should, therefore, try somehow to cause other members of a group to identify benefits to themselves of engaging in productive rather than destructive conflict. Randy Komisar, a prominent Silicon Valley executive who has worked with companies such as WebTV and TiVo and co-founded Claris Corporation, had this to say about the importance of this kind motivational role as his companies grew:

“I found that the art wasn’t in getting the numbers to foot, or figuring out a clever way to move something down the assembly line. It was in getting somebody else to do that and to do it better than I could ever do, in encouraging people to exceed their own expectations; in inspiring people to be great; and in getting them to do it all together, in harmony. That was the high art.”Komisar, R., & Lineback, K. (2000). The monk and the riddle: The education of a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. We’ll talk later about specific strategies that leaders and other group members can employ to manage conflict by means of motivation and other strategies.

The Leader as Delegator

No leader, even the leader of a handful of other people in a small team, can handle all the challenges or do all the work of a group. In fact, you’ve probably encountered leaders throughout your life who either exhausted themselves or alienated other group members—or both!—because they tried to do just that. Beyond accepting the sheer impossibility of shouldering all of a group’s work, a leader can attempt to prevent or manage conflict by judiciously by acting as a delegatorA leader who seeks to prevent or manage conflict by transferring responsibility for some of his/her tasks to others in a group or organization., turning over responsibility for various tasks to others.

Warren Bennis, a pioneer in the field of leadership, wrote that such delegation is a vital component of the leader’s role. When it is practiced skillfully, according to Bennis, delegation may confine conflicts to the levels at which they occur and free the leader to conduct higher-level undertakingsBennis, W. (1997). Why leaders can’t lead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass..

The Leader as “Structuralist”

Michael Thomas, a professor for many years at the University of Texas, served as a respected consultant to numerous businesses and educational institutions. As he went from group to group, he tackled their problems primarily by reviewing their organizational charts and tinkering with their structure. As an admired organizational theorist and structuralistA leader who attempts to manage conflict in a group by its composition or structure., he believed that nearly any problem, tension, or conflict in a group could be solved structurallyProfessor emeritus Thomas, Jr., dies at 76. (2008, Nov 14). US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Retrieved from ProQuest Database.. How people behave, he said, is largely determined by where they sit in an organization and whom they report to and supervise. If Mike saw that people in two separate sections of a group were at odds, for instance, he would propose that the sections be consolidated so that both became responsible to the same supervisor. Mike certainly used further techniques in his consultant’s role, but his emphasis on structural changes stands as one kind of advice for leaders who hope to lessen the damaging effects of conflict in their groups.

Realistic Conflict Theory, or Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT), likewise stresses the importance for leaders of configuring subgroups within a larger group so that they are required to meet common goals. A classic study by social psychologist Muzafer SherifSherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C.W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: The University Book Exchange. with 22 twelve-year-old boys in a summer camp in Oklahoma exemplifies the nature of RGCT and illustrates the concept of “leader as structuralist.”

The boys were split into two groups at the start of the study, after which leaders quickly emerged in each group. The two groups were then required to compete in camp games and were rewarded on the basis of their performance. Soon conflict arose as negative attitudes and behavior developed within each group toward the other.

In the third part of the study, the structure of the camp was changed in such a way that the two antagonistic groups were called upon to share responsibility for accomplishing a variety of tasks. The outcome of this structural change was that attitudes within each group toward the other became favorable and conflict lessened dramatically.Sherif, Muzafer (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Paradoxically, a leader may also deal with conflict by separating people rather than bringing them together. If a team is experiencing internal conflict that seems to be related to intense personality differences between two individuals, for instance, the leader may decide to change the composition of the team so as to reduce their interaction. (Think about the third-grade teacher who finds two children pummeling each other during recess and sends them to opposite ends of the schoolyard).

The Leader as Promoter of “Constructive Deviation”

A deviateSomeone who differs in some important way from the rest of a group. is someone who differs in some important way from the rest of a group. ResearchValentine, K.B., & Fisher, B.A. (1974). An interaction analysis of verbal innovative deviance in small groups. Speech Monographs, 41, 413–420. indicates that interaction with deviates may account for up to a quarter of many groups’ time and that such interaction may serve a positive function if it successfully causes people who hold a majority opinion to examine their views critically. In essence, dealing with deviates can keep group members on their toes and counteract the tendency to engage in groupthink. Encouraging deviates is one measure a leader can take to promote constructive conflict which brings a group to a higher level of understanding and harmony.

Of course, listening to a deviate may be disconcerting, since it may push us outside our comfort zone in the way that Peter McLaren did in the story told by Roberto Bahruth. In fact, deviates naturally have great difficulty influencing a group because of other people’s resistance. For this reason, part of a leader’s responsibility may sometimes consist in simply making sure that a deviate is not outright silenced by members of the majority. In other cases, it is the leader who at least at times assumes the role of deviate herself or himself.

Because deviates by their very nature call the members of the majority in a group to stop and seriously question their attitudes and behavior, which is usually disconcerting and uncomfortable, the most successful deviates are generally those who attempt to lead others in a cautious fashion and who demonstrate loyalty to their group and its goals.Thameling, C.L., & Andrews, P.H. (1992). Majority responses to opinion deviates: A communicative analysis. Small Group Research, 23, 475–502. Timing can also determine whether a deviate’s influence will be accepted. Waiting until a group has developed a sense of cohesiveness is most likely to be more effective, for instance, than jumping in with an unexpected or unconventional proposal during the group’s formative stages.

A Leadership Example

In early 1980 the brutal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia had just been defeated at the end of many years of fighting, and several hundred thousand Cambodian refugees flooded hastily-constructed camps in eastern Thailand.Chandler, D.P. (1992). A history of Cambodia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Many Americans became concerned about the suffering in the refugee camps, and a group of 25 graduate students in Vermont studying international administration nearly played a direct role in the situation because their program’s director was willing to speak out as a deviate.

The students were seated in a circle one morning, engaged in a discussion about human service agencies. One of them noticed that the director of the program, Walter Johnson, had been silent for some time and asked, “Walter, what do you think?”

Walter took a deep breath and replied, “I think what we’re talking about is all well and good, but what I’d really like to do is call a colleague of mine at the U.N. and see if we could help the Cambodian refugees in those horrible camps in Thailand.”

A stunned silence fell over the group. Someone asked, “Are you serious?”

Walter replied, “Yes, I am.”

Silence returned. Finally, one of the students said, “Walter, if you believe what you’re saying, go ahead and talk to your friend.”

Walter left the room and returned in half an hour to say that his U.N. colleague was willing to investigate humanitarian service options in Thailand for the students. The challenge, then, was to explore whether the students themselves would consider performing such service.

For the next two days, the whole group engaged in difficult, soul-searching discussions about what it would mean for them to go to Thailand. They quickly realized that if they made that choice they would have to abandon their curriculum at the school and might imperil their financial aid. Some of them would probably have to leave a spouse or children behind. And they might be putting themselves in danger of disease or violence. On the other hand, they could potentially be able to act according to their shared ideal of contributing to world peace in a personal, direct, and powerful manner.

Ultimately, the group realized that it was facing an “all or none” question: either every one of them would have to agree to travel to Thailand, or none of them should. Walter’s role as a constructive deviate in the Vermont group stimulated it to consider an option—the “go to Thailand option”—which in turn spurred earnest and productive conflict which most likely would not otherwise have taken place.

Conflict and the Hope of Social Change

Many years ago one of the authors attended a multi-day workshop in New York City on how to promote international peace and reconciliation. After hearing a presentation at the workshop about nuclear proliferation and biological weapons, a participant asked, “Human history is full of violence, bloodshed, and cruelty. What hope do we have of ever saving ourselves?”

The presenter replied, “Yes, we’ve had violence and bloodshed and cruelty throughout history. And as long as there are differences between people and their opinions, the danger will exist that we’ll destroy ourselves, especially now that we have weapons that can wipe out our whole species. But the question isn’t, ‘Can we eliminate conflict?’ The question is really, ‘Can we accept conflict as part of the human condition and handle it so that we move forward instead of annihilating ourselves?’”

The presenter then offered what she said were signs of hope that groups of people can, indeed, work through even profound differences without descending into chaos or perpetual hatred. Slavery was once considered a normal part of society, she said, but no more. Child labor, too, used to be considered acceptable. And miscegenation laws existed in the United States until 1967. The presenter’s point here was that, with hard work, groups can overcome past evils and deficiencies if they’re willing to work through the conflict that invariably crops up when individuals are asked to change their behavior.

Two Models of Conflict

The presenter in New York went on to say that we can conceive conflict in terms of two models. The first is the cancer modelA view which conceives of any conflict as being inevitably expanding, pernicious, and destructive., which portrays conflict as an insidious and incessantly expanding element which if left to itself will inevitably overwhelm and destroy a group. If we accept this model, conflict must either be prevented, if possible, or extirpated if it does manage to take root.

In the friction modelA view of conflict which conceives of it as a natural and manageable by-product of any group’s activities., by contrast, conflict is seen as a natural by-product of human relations. Any machine generates waste heat simply through the interaction of its component parts, and this heat seldom threatens to halt the actions of the machine as long as people conduct preventive and ongoing maintenance—adding oil, greasing joints, and so forth. Likewise, according to this model, groups inevitably produce conflict through the interaction of their members and need not fear that it will destroy them as long as they handle it wisely. Saul Alinsky, a prominent 20^th-century community organizer, wrote these words in support of the friction model of conflict: “Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.”Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York: Random House.

Benefits of Healthy Conflict

Without conflict, life in general can easily become stagnant and tedious. When conflict is absent in a group, it often means that people are silencing themselves and holding back their opinions. If group discussions are significant, rather than merely routine, then varying opinions about the best course of action should be expected to arise. If people suppress their opinions, on the other hand, groupthink may spread and the final result may not be the best solution.

One favorable feature of healthy conflict is that people engaged in it point out difficulties or weaknesses in proposed alternatives and work together to solve them. As noted in another section, a key to keeping conflict healthy is to make sure that discussion remains focused on the task rather than upon people’s personalities.

If it is properly guided and not allowed to deteriorate into damaging forms, conflict can benefit a group in several ways. Besides broadening the range of ideas which group members take into consideration, it can help people clarify their own views and those of others so that they have a better chance of sharing a common understanding of issues. It can also help group members unearth erroneous assumptions about one another. Finally, it can actually make a group more cohesive as members realize they are surmounting difficulties together. In short, conflict is indeed normal.

Three Style “Menus”

All three style “menus” include a range of approaches, as represented in Table 10.1 "Individual Styles of Conflict in Groups". The styles described by Linda Putnam and Charmaine WilsonPutnam, L.L., & Wilson, C.E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale, in M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 629–652). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. range from nonconfrontational to controlling and cooperative. According to Putnam and Wilson, if you adopt a nonconfrontational styleAccording to Putnam and Wilson, the practice of refraining from expressing thoughts and opinions during a conflict., you refrain from expressing your thoughts and opinions during a conflict. This may be because you’re shy or feel intimidated by the group environment or the behavior of some of its members. It may also be because you don’t know how to express viewpoints constructively under the time constraints of a conflict situation or lack information about the topic of the conflict. If you adopt a controlling styleAccording to Putnam and Wilson, the practice of attempting to force others in a group to agree with one’s position in a conflict., by contrast, you’ll try to monopolize discussion during a conflict and make a serious effort to force others in the group to either agree with you or at least accept your proposals for how the group should act. The cooperative styleAccording to Putnam and Wilson, the practice of participating in a conflict in a spirit of give and take. of conflict, finally, involves active participation in the group’s conflicts in a spirit of give and take, with the group’s superordinate goalsGoals which transcend those of individuals in a conflict and which all parties can subscribe to. in mind.

Rahim, Antonioni, and PsenickaRahim, M.A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader power, subordinates’ styles of handling conflict, and job performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 191–211. enlarged upon Putnam and Wilson’s three-style “menu” by adding two further options. They framed their conceptualization in terms of potential combinations of two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others. Here are the options resulting from the combinations:

High concern for self and others (integrating styleAccording to Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenicka, a practice of being open and willing to exchange information and resolve conflict in a way that is acceptable to all.): Openness; willingness to exchange information and resolve conflict in a manner acceptable to all parties.

Low concern for self and high concern for others (obliging styleAccording to Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenicka, a practice of minimizing points of difference in a conflict so as to try to satisfy others’ needs.): A tendency to minimize points of difference among parties to a conflict and to try to satisfy other people’s needs.

High concern for self and low concern for others (dominating styleAccording to Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenicka, a win-lose approach to conflict in which one tries to compel others to accept one’s position.): A win-lose orientation and a drive to compel others to accept one’s position.

Low concern for self and low concern for others (avoiding styleAccording to Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenicka, a practice of sidestepping areas of conflict, passing the buck, or withdrawing from conflict entirely.): Sidestepping areas of conflict, passing the buck to others, or withdrawing entirely from the conflict situation.

Intermediate concern for self and for others (compromising styleAccording to Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenicka, an approach to conflict characterized by mutual sacrifice in the pursuit of outcomes that all members of a group can accept.): Mutual sacrifice for the sake of achieving an outcome that all members of the group can accept.

Adler and RodmanAdler, R.B., & Rodman, G. (2009). Understanding human communication (10^th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. emphasized communication elements in their listing of five conflict styles. First of all, they designated nonassertionAccording to Adler and Rodman, a style of conflict marked by inability or unwillingness to express oneself. as a style of conflict in which the group member is unable or unwilling to express him- or herself. According to these theorists, this conflict style is widely used in intimate relationships such as marriages, in which the partners may disagree with each other frequently yet decide not to provoke or prolong conflicts by voicing their differences. People in groups can display a nonassertive style by either ignoring areas of conflict, trying to change the subject when a conflict appears to be arising, physically removing themselves from a place where a conflict is taking place, or simply giving in to someone else’s desires during a conflict.

Direct aggressionAccording to Adler and Rodman, a conflict style involving willful verbal or nonverbal attacks on other people. is the second conflict style identified by Adler and Rodman. A group member who attacks someone else willfully—by saying “That’s ridiculous” or “That’s a crazy idea” or something else that attempts to demean the person—is engaging in direct aggression. Direct aggression need not be verbal; gestures, facial expressions, and posture can all be used to convey aggressive meaning.

Passive aggressionAccording to Adler and Rodman, a conflict behavior marked by subtle expressions of hostility or resistance which the party to the conflict may disavow., referred to as “crazymakingGeorge Bach’s term for passive aggression.” by George BachBach, G.R., & Goldberg, H. (1974). Creative aggression. Garden City, NY: Doubleday., is a subtle conflict style in which a person expresses hostility or resistance to others through stubbornness, resentment, procrastination, jokes with ambiguous meanings, petty annoyances, or persistent failure to fully meet expectations or responsibilities. Someone who displays this style of conflict may disavow any negative intent if confronted or questioned about his or her behavior.

Indirect communicationAccording to Adler and Rodman, a conflict style which uses hints, suggestions, or other polite means of seeking compliance from others with one’s desires. is a style which avoids the unmistakable force of the aggressive style and which instead implies concern for the person or persons it is directed toward.Kellermann, K., & Shea, B.C. Threats, suggestions, hints, and promises: Gaining compliance efficiently and politely. Communication quarterly, 44, 145–165. Rather than bluntly saying, “I’d like you to get out of my office now” when a discussion is bogging down, for instance, you might yawn discreetly or comment on how much work you have to do on a big project. Indirect communication may comprise hints, suggestions, or other polite means of seeking someone else’s compliance with one’s desires. Sometimes it can be used to send “trial balloonsTentative proposals designed to test how parties to a conflict may respond to later requests or other expressions of desire.” to group members—proposals which are tentative and provisional and don’t have a great deal of ego investmentPersonal, emotional commitment to an idea or course of action in a conflict. behind them.

AssertionA process of sending descriptive and normative messages in a conflict without coercing or judging other parties in the conflict. is the final style of communication identified by Adler and Rodman, and it is also the one that we recommend in most cases. Group members who operate according to this style express their feelings and thoughts clearly but neither coerce nor judge others while doing so. If you choose to use what Adler and TowneAdler, R.B., & Towne, N. (2002). Looking out/looking in (10^th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. called a “clear message formatAccording to Adler and Towne, a five-step process of transmitting assertive messages in a conflict.,” you can practice assertion by following five steps in a conflict situation.

The first step is to offer an objective description of behavior being exhibited by those with whom you are in conflict. Don’t interpret or assess the behavior; just describe it. For example, you might say, “Lee, you just rolled your eyes at me.”

The second step is to present your interpretation of the behavior, but without stating the interpretation as fact. For instance, “Lee, I get the impression that you may have dismissed my proposal, because you rolled your eyes at me.”

The third step is to express your feelings about the behavior you’ve described and interpreted. For example, “When you roll your eyes like that, I get the impression that you’ve dismissed my proposal, and I feel resentful.”

The next step is to identify the consequences of the behavior, your interpretation, and your feelings. For instance, “Lee, I see that you rolled your eyes at me when I made my proposal. I get the impression that you’ve dismissed it, and I’m resentful. I don’t feel like discussing the matter any further now.”

The final step is to state your intentions, based on the four preceding ingredients of the situation. For example, “Lee, you rolled your eyes at me when I made my proposal. I get the impression that you’ve dismissed it, and I’m resentful. I don’t feel like discussing the matter any further now, and if I see you act this way again I’ll probably just leave the room until I calm down.”

We admit that following a list of communication behaviors like one this can feel unfamiliar and perhaps overly complex. Fortunately, being responsibly assertive can sometimes be a very simple matter which immediately yields positive results. In fact, following just one or two steps from the five outlined here may be sufficient to prevent, defuse, or resolve a conflict.

A friend of ours named Gus told us about a time when he was part of an enthusiastic crowd watching a football game at Washington State University. A few rows below him in the stadium sat an elderly woman, and directly in front of her was a man many inches taller and substantially heavier than she was.

The first time the WSU team made a good play, the man leapt to his feet and screamed wildly, blocking the woman’s view of the field. As the widespread cheering subsided, but with the man still standing in front of her, the woman calmly but forcefully said, “Sorry sir, but I can’t see.”

The man grunted roughly in response and kept standing until the rest of the crowd quieted. The next couple of times that WSU managed an impressive play—and this was one of those rare contests in which they did so on several occasions—the man jumped up again, preventing the woman from seeing the action over and over again.

Every time this happened, the woman spoke up, saying “Sir, I really can’t see” or “You’re blocking my view.” According to Gus, the effect of the woman’s assertive statements was like a series of weights being placed on the man’s shoulders. Eventually, he succumbed to the cumulative weight of her statements—the power of her assertions—and moved to an empty nearby seat.

Of course, not everyone who behaves in ways that we find objectionable will respond as positively as the oafish gentleman did to the elderly woman. Some people in the heat of a disagreement may resist even the mildest and least judgmental statements of assertion. How to deal with people who resist even responsibly assertive communication, along with other strategies to manage conflict in general, will be the subjects of our next section.

Conflict Management Strategies

As professional communicators, we can acknowledge and anticipate that conflict will be present in every context or environment where communication occurs, particularly in groups. To that end, we can predict, anticipate, and formulate strategies to address conflict successfully. How you choose to approach conflict influences its resolution. Joseph DeVitoDeVito, J. (2003). Messages: builing interpersoanl skills. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. offers us several conflict management strategies that we have adapted and expanded for our use.

Empathy

Communication involves not only the words we write or speak, but how and when we write or say them. The way we communicate also carries meaning, and empathy for the individual involves attending to this aspect of interaction. Empathetic listeningListening to both the literal and implied meanings within a message. involves listening to both the literal and implied meanings within a message. For example, the implied meaning might involve understand what has led this person to feel this way. By paying attention to feelings and emotions associated with content and information, we can build relationships and address conflict more constructively. In management, negotiating conflict is a common task and empathy is one strategy to consider when attempting to resolve issues. We can also observe that inherent in the group development process is the presence of conflict. It is not a sign of bad things to come, nor a reason to think something is wrong. Conflict is a normal part of communication in general, and group communication in particular. In fact, conflict can be the antidote to groupthink, and help the group members refrain from going along with the flow, even when reason or the available information indicated otherwise.

Gunnysacking

Bach and WydenBach, G., & Wyden, P. (1968). The intimacy enemy. New York, NY: Avon. discuss gunnysackingThe imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time. (or backpacking) as the imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time. If your organization has gone through a merger, and your business has transformed, there may have been conflicts that occurred during the transition. Holding onto the way things used to be can be like a stone in your gunnysack, and influence how you interpret your current context.

People may be aware of similar issues but might not know your history, and cannot see your backpack or its contents. For example, if your previous manager handled issues in one way, and your new manage handles them in a different way, this may cause you some degree of stress and frustration. Your new manager cannot see how the relationship existed in the past, but will still observe the tension. Bottling up your frustrations only hurts you and can cause your current relationships to suffer. By addressing, or unpacking, the stones you carry, you can better assess the current situation with the current patterns and variables.

We learn from experience, but can distinguish between old wounds and current challenges, and try to focus our energies where they will make the most positive impact.

Managing Your Emotions

Have you ever seen red, or perceived a situation through rage, anger, or frustration? Then you know that you cannot see or think clearly when you are experiencing strong emotions. There will be times in the work environment when emotions run high, and your awareness of them can help you clear your mind and choose to wait until the moment has passes to tackle the challenge.

“Never speak or make decision in anger” is one common saying that holds true, but not all emotions involve fear, anger, or frustration. A job loss can be a sort of professional death for many, and the sense of loss can be profound. The loss of a colleague to a layoff while retaining your position can bring pain as well as relief, and a sense of survivor’s guilt. Emotions can be contagious in the workplace, and fear of the unknown can influence people to act in irrational ways. The wise business communicator can recognize when emotions are on edge in themselves or others, and choose to wait to communicate, problem-solve, or negotiate until after the moment has passed.

Evaluations and Criticism in the Workplace

GuffeyGuffey, M. (2008). Essentials of business communication (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson-Wadsworth. pp.320 wisely notes that Xenophon, a Greek philosopher, once said “The sweetest of all sounds is praise.” We have seen previously that appreciation, respect, inclusion, and belonging are all basic human needs across all contexts, and are particularly relevant in the workplace. Efficiency and morale are positively related, and recognition of good work is important. There may come a time, however, when evaluations involve criticism. Knowing how to approach this criticism can give you peace of mind to listen clearly, separating subjective, personal attacks from objective, constructive requests for improvement. Guffey offers us seven strategies for giving and receiving evaluations and criticism in the workplace that we have adapted here.

Listen Without Interrupting

If you are on the receiving end of an evaluation, start by listening without interruption. Interruptions can be internal and external, and warrant further discussion. If your supervisor starts to discuss a point and you immediately start debating the point in your mind, you are paying attention to yourself and what you think they said or are going to say, and not that which is actually communicated. This gives rise to misunderstandings and will cause you to lose valuable information you need to understand and address the issue at hand.

External interruptions may involve your attempt to get a word in edgewise, and may change the course of the conversation. Let them speak while you listen, and if you need to take notes to focus your thoughts, take clear notes of what is said, also noting points to revisit later. External interruptions can also take the form of a telephone ringing, a “text message has arrived” chime, or a co-worker dropping by in the middle of the conversation.

As an effective business communicator, you know all too well to consider the context and climate of the communication interaction when approaching the delicate subject of evaluations or criticism. Choose a time and place free from interruption. Choose one outside of the common space where there may be many observers. Turn off your cell phone. Choose face to face communication instead of an impersonal email. By providing a space free of interruption, you are displaying respect for the individual and the information.

Determine the Speaker’s Intent

We have discussed previews as a normal part of conversation, and in this context they play an important role. People want to know what is coming and generally dislike surprises, particularly when the context of an evaluation is present. If you are on the receiving end, you may need to ask a clarifying question if it doesn’t count as an interruption. You may also need to take notes, and write down questions that come to mind to address when it is your turn to speak. As a manager, be clear and positive in your opening and lead with praise. You can find one point, even if it is only that the employee consistently shows up to work on time, to highlight before transitioning to a performance issue.

Indicate You Are Listening

In mainstream U.S. culture, eye contact is a signal that you are listening and paying attention to the person speaking. Take notes, nod your head, or lean forward to display interest and listening. Regardless of whether you are the employee receiving the criticism or the supervisor delivering it, displaying of listening behavior engenders a positive climate that helps mitigate the challenge of negative news or constructive criticism.

Paraphrase

Restate the main points to paraphrase what has been discussed. This verbal display allows for clarification and acknowledges receipt of the message.

If you are the employee, summarize the main points and consider steps you will take to correct the situation. If none come to mind, or you are nervous and are having a hard time thinking clearly, state out loud the main point and ask if you can provide solution steps and strategies at a later date. You can request a follow-up meeting if appropriate, or indicate you will respond in writing via email to provide the additional information.

If you are the employer, restate the main points to ensure that the message was received, as not everyone hears everything that is said or discussed the first time it is presented. Stress can impair listening, and paraphrasing the main points can help address this common response.

First Things First

We’ve all heard that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Managing conflict is easiest if we’ve acquired some tools to prevent it from getting out of hand. One way to gain such tools is to undergo some actual formal training in conflict management. A Google search of educational sites related to “conflict management courses” yields several thousand results from around the United States and elsewhere, including numerous certificate and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate level. Commercial entities offer hundreds more opportunities for professional development in this realm.

A second, more specific preventive measure is for members of a group to periodically review and reaffirm their commitment to the norms, policies, and procedures they’ve set for themselves. In more formal groups, it’s a good idea to assign one member to look over the bylaws or constitution every year to see if anything needs to be changed, clarified, or removed in light of altered circumstances. The danger in not paying attention to such details is represented in the story, told by Robert TownsendTownsend, Robert (1970). Up the organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf., of a British civil service job created in 1803 which called for a man to stand on the Cliffs of Dover with a spyglass. The man’s role was to ring a bell if he saw Napoleon coming. The job was not abolished until 1945.

A third measure which groups can take to lessen the possibility that damaging conflict will take place within them is to discuss and distinguish between detrimental and beneficial conflict—between that which promotes improvement and that which obstructs progress. The initial “forming” stage of a group, when people are apt to act tentative and be on their best behavior, is probably the best time to set aside some group time to let members share their views, experiences, and expectations with regard to “bad” and “good” conflict. It may be a good idea to ask members of the group to cite specific examples of conflict which they would accept or endorse, and also examples of conflict which they would hope to avoid.

A fourth preventive measure is for the group to explicitly remind its members that “deviatesSomeone who differs in some important way from the rest of a group.” are to be appreciated and respected for the diverse perspectives they can share and the unconventional opinions they may hold. This kind of statement may give creative members the impression that they have intellectual “free space” for generating and sharing ideas later in the evolution of the group.

Logistical Measures

Proponents of feng shui believe that configurations of furniture affect people’s moods and behavior. Employees at the National Observatory in Washington, DC, maintain an atomic clock which keeps precise universal time. You don’t need to belong to either of these groups to believe that how a group uses space and time can affect the level and nature of conflict it will experience.

With respect to proxemicsThe study of how people’s use of space affects interaction and meaning., for instance, research has demonstrated that conflict between people who disagree with each other is more likely to flare up if they sit directly across from each other than if they are seated side by side.Gordon, J., Mondy, R. W., Sharplin, A., & Premeaux, S. R. (1990). Management and organizational behavior. New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 540. Why not, then, purposefully plan where people are going to sit and the angles from which they’ll see each other?

Decisions about when and for how long groups will gather can also affect their level of conflict. Research into human beings’ circadian rhythmA biological process which displays a recurrent pattern each 24 hours.—the 24-hour cycle of energy highs and lows-shows that 3 a.m. and 3 p.m. are the two lowest-energy times.http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2004/10/17/night-shift.html Depending on whether group members clash more or less when their energy level is low, it therefore may or may not be wise to meet at three o’clock in the afternoon.

Whenever people in a group get together, it’s natural that the mood and outlook they bring with them will be influenced in part by what’s happened to them earlier that day. For any individual, a touchy discussion, a disappointment, or an embarrassing episode might precede the group’s interactions. Unfortunate events like these—as well as other powerful experiences, whether positive or not—may consciously or unconsciously color the demeanor of group members at the start of their interaction.

Another time-related conflict management strategy, thus, is to begin a discussion with a “time out” for people to rest and loosen up. We know of college instructors who initiate each of their class sessions with two minutes of silence for this same purpose.

Once Conflict Occurs…

Numerous authorities have offered suggestions on how to manage conflict once it reaches a level where it should not or cannot be allowed to dissipate on its own. Hartley & Dawson, first of all,Hartley, P., & Dawson, M. (2010). Success in groupwork. New York: St. Martin’s Press. suggested taking the following steps:

1. Make sure the lines of communication are open. If they aren’t, open them.
2. Define the issues. Don’t allow a nebulous sense of overpowering disagreement to develop. Be specific about what the conflict pertains to.
3. Focus on the task, rather than on personalities. Discourage or deflect comments that question a group member’s motives or personal qualities.
4. Proceed according to your established ground rules, policies, procedures, and norms. After all, you established these components of your group’s identity precisely to deal with difficult circumstances.

In addition to following rules and procedures peculiar to its own history, a group that’s experiencing conflict should strive to maintain civilityMeyer, J.R. Effect of verbal aggressiveness on the perceived importance of secondary goals in messages. Communication Studies, 55, 168–184. and follow basic etiquette. As Georges Clemenceau wrote, “Etiquette is nothing but hot air, but that is what our automobiles ride on, and look how it smoothes out the bumps.”

Malcolm Gladwell’s popular book, The Tipping Point, describes how New York City’s subway system was revitalized by David Gunn and William Bratton in the 1980s and 90sGladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company.. Together, Gunn and Bratton launched a campaign to eliminate vandalism, including graffiti on the sides of train cars, and to prosecute “fare-beaters.” At the start of the campaign, doubters complained that more serious crime in the subways and streets needed to be attacked first. Gunn and Bratton insisted, however, that setting a broad example of civility would ultimately create an atmosphere in which potential criminals would be less likely to engage in serious criminal acts. After many years of relentlessly enforcing basic laws mandating public decency, not only did graffiti nearly disappear entirely from the subway system, but overall crime in the New York metropolitan area declined substantially.

Hopefully you will never witness vandalism, much less felonious behavior, in a small group. Malicious verbal interchanges, nevertheless, can poison the atmosphere among people and should be prevented if at all possible. As an old Japanese saying puts it, “The one who raises his voice first loses the argument.” It doesn’t hurt to calmly and quietly ask that discussion of particularly contentious topics be postponed if comments seem to be in danger of overwhelming the group with negativity.

In addition to reminding people that they should exercise basic politeness, it may be wise at times for someone in the group to ask for a recess in a discussion. Calvin Coolidge said, “I have never been hurt by anything I didn’t say,” and it may be a good idea in irate moments to silence people briefly to prevent what Adler and RodmanAdler, R.B., & Rodman, G. (2009). Understanding human communication (10^th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. referred to as an “escalatory spiralA process which reinforces itself and thereby continually increases in intensity.” of hurtful conversation.

If the tone of a group discussion permits thoughtful reflection, it can be helpful to separate task and relationship goals and deal with conflict over each kind separately.Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting Together: Building a relationship that gets to yes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Using indirect communication, rather than confronting another group member head-on, may also defuse extreme emotions and preserve other people’s face.

Here are further techniques for managing conflict in group interactions:

1. “Test the waters” for new ideas without making it seem that you’re so attached to them that you’ll fight to impose them on others.
2. If an ego clash erupts, see if you can identify something that the disagreeing individuals can agree on. Perhaps this will be a superordinate goal. It could also be a common opposing force, since the idea that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” can serve to bind people together.
3. Employ active listening. Strive to fully understand other people’s viewpoints before stating your own.
4. If people’s comments meander to topics that aren’t germane, steer the discussion back to the key issues under discussion.
5. Frame the situation as a problem to be solved, rather than as a struggle which must be won.
6. Treat everyone as partners on a common quest. Invite continued frank interchanges and assure group members that they may speak out without fear of reprisal.
7. Consider carefully how important it is for you to prevail in a particular conflict or even just to express your views. Ask yourself whether the potential negative consequences of your action will be worth it.
8. Unless a disagreement is over an essential point, consider whether it might be best to “agree to disagree” and move on.

“Going with the Flow”

As we’ve seen, there is no shortage of specific strategies and techniques for people to choose from when conflict occurs in a group. In fact, it may be overwhelming to try to decide which strategies and techniques to use, at which times and with which people, under which circumstances. Randy Fujishin, a therapist and writer from California, proposed an attitude which might help people deal both with conflict itself and with the feelings of stress it often engenders. He suggested that we regard conflict as neither a call to battle nor a warning to dissolve or disband a group. Instead, Fujishin proposed that people regard conflict as “an invitation to listen, learn, explore, and growFujishin, R. (1998). Gifts from the heart: 10 communication skills for developing more loving relationships. San Francisco: Acada Books..” His advice when conflict takes place is this: “Instead of tensing, relax. Instead of stiffening, bend. Instead of arguing, listen. Instead of pushing or running away, get closer. Flow with the disagreement, situation, or individual for a period to discover where it may lead.”

Fujishin also developed what he called the “SLACKA method developed by Randy Fujishin to manage conflict (“SLACK” stands for “sit, listen, ask, compromise, and kiss”).” method of managing conflict. Although he intended it to be brought to bear primarily on disputes in one-on-one relationships, its components may apply also in group situations. “SLACK” is an acronym standing for “sit, listen, ask, compromise, and kiss.” Major emphasis in this method is placed on being receptive to what other parties in a conflict have to say, as well as to their emotional states. Fujishin really does suggest kissing or hugging as the final step in this method, but of course many groups will choose instead to celebrate the achievement of post-conflict reconciliation and progress through words.

Perhaps the central message we can derive from Fujishin’s writings on this topic is that, although we should respond to conflict earnestly, we should take a long view and avoid losing our composure in the process of managing it. Even at moments of extreme tension, we can remind ourselves of an ancient saying attributed first to Persian mystics and later cited by such notable figures as Abraham Lincoln: “This too shall pass.”Taylor, A. (1968). “This Too Will Pass (Jason 910Q)”. In F. Harkort, K.C. Peeters, & R. Wildhaber. Volksüberlieferung: Festschrift für Kurt Ranke (pp. 345–350). Göttingen, German: Schwartz.

Developing Your Own Crisis Communication Plan

A crisis communication planThe prepared scenario document that organizes information into responsibilities and lines of communication prior to an event. is the prepared scenario document that organizes information into responsibilities and lines of communication prior to an event. With a plan in place, if an emergency arises, each person knows his or her role and responsibilities from a common reference document. Overall effectiveness can be enhanced with a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities for an effective and swift response.

The plan should include four elements:

1. Crisis communication team members with contact information,
2. Designated spokesperson,
3. Meeting place/location, and
4. Media plan with procedures.

A crisis communication team includes people who can:

1. Decide what actions to take,
2. Carry out those actions, and
3. Offer expertise or education in the relevant areas.

By designating a spokesperson prior to an actual emergency, your team addresses the inevitable need for information in a proactive manner. People will want to know what happened and where to get further details about the crisis. Lack of information breeds rumors and that can make a bad situation worse. The designated spokesperson should be knowledgeable about the organization and its values, comfortable in front a microphone, a camera and media lights, and able to stay calm under pressure.

Part of your communication crisis plan should focus on where you will meet to coordinate communicate and activities. For your own house in case of a fire, you might meet in the front yard. For an organization, a designated contingency building or office some distance away from your usual place of business might serve as a central place for communication in an emergency that requires evacuating your building. Depending on the size of your organization and the type of physical facilities where you do business, the company may develop an emergency plan with exit routes, hazardous materials procedures, and policies for handling bomb threats, for example. Safety, of course, is the first priority, but in terms of communication, a key goal is also to eliminate confusion about where people are and where information is coming from.

Whether or not evacuation is necessary, when a crisis occurs your designated spokesperson will gather information and carry out your media plan. He or she will need to make quick judgments about which information to share, how to phrase it, and whether certain individuals need to be notified of facts before they become public. The media and public will want to know information and reliable information is preferable to speculation. Official responses help clarify the situation for the public, but an unofficial interview can make the tragedy personal, and attract unwanted attention. Remind employees to direct all inquiries to the official spokesperson and to never speak “off the record.”

Enable your spokesperson to have access to the place you indicated as your crisis contingency location to coordinate communication and activities, and allow that professional to prepare and respond to inquiries. When crisis communication is handled in a professional manner, it seeks not to withhold information or mislead, but to minimize the “spin damage” from the incident by providing necessary facts, even if they are unpleasant or even tragic.

Additional Resources

A Literary Zone article describes the literary devices of internal monologue and stream of consciousness.

http://literaryzone.com/?p=79

For another twist on the meaning of “stream of consciousness,” visit this blog from the retail merchant Gaiam.

http://blog.gaiam.com/

Read an informative article on self-concept and self-esteem.

http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/impact_of_selfconcept_and_selfesteem_on_life

PsyBlog offers an informative article on self-disclosure. Don’t miss the reader comment fields at the end!

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/02/getting-closer-art-of-self-disclosure.php

The job search site Monster offers a menu of articles about employment interviews.

http://career-advice.monster.com/job-interview/careers.aspx

About.com offers an informative article about different types of job interviews.

http://jobsearch.about.com/od/interviewsnetworking/a/interviewtypes.htm

The Boston Globe’s Boston.com site offers tips on handling conflict in the workplace from management consultant Sue Lankton-Rivas.

http://www.boston.com/jobs/galleries/workplaceconflict/

An article by M. Afzalur Rahim which describes in detail the challenges posed by organizational conflict and offers approaches for managing it.

http://193.140.134.6/~gokturk/sbox/Rahimtowarddevtheory.pdf