This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
English to Chinese - Standard rate: 0.12 USD per word / 35 USD per hour Chinese to English - Standard rate: 0.12 USD per character / 35 USD per hour Simple English to English - Standard rate: 0.12 USD per word / 35 USD per hour Simple English to Chinese - Standard rate: 0.12 USD per word / 35 USD per hour English to Simple English - Standard rate: 0.12 USD per word / 35 USD per hour
More
Less
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 1
English to Chinese: PUBLIC ORGANISATION PROCEDURES RESEARCH PHASE 1
Source text - English What do organizations use conflict management for?
For any organization to be effective and efficient in achieving its goals, the people in the organization need to have a shared vision of what they are striving to achieve, as well as clear objectives for each team / department and individual. You also need ways of recognizing and resolving conflict amongst people, so that conflict does not become so serious that co-operation is impossible. All members of any organization need to have ways of keeping conflict to a minimum - and of solving problems caused by conflict, before conflict becomes a major obstacle to your work. This could happen to any organization, whether it is an NGO, a CBO, a political party, a business or a government.
Conflict management is the process of planning to avoid conflict where possible and organizing to resolve conflict where it does happen, as rapidly and smoothly as possible.
Important things to know about "conflict" and "conflict management":
The differences between "competition" and "conflict"
"Competition" usually brings out the best in people, as they strive to be top in their field, whether in sport, community affairs, politics or work. In fact, fair and friendly competition often leads to new sporting achievements, scientific inventions or outstanding effort in solving a community problem. When competition becomes unfriendly or bitter, though, conflict can begin - and this can bring out the worst in people.
Common causes of conflict
Causes or sources of organizational conflict can be many and varied. The most common causes are the following:
-Scarcity of resources (finance, equipment, facilities, etc)
-Different attitudes, values or perceptions
-Disagreements about needs, goals, priorities and interests
-Poor communication
-Poor or inadequate organizational structure
-Lack of teamwork
-Lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities
Conflict between individual
People have differing styles of communication, ambitions, political or religious views and different cultural backgrounds. In our diverse society, the possibility of these differences leading to conflict between individuals is always there, and we must be alert to preventing and resolving situations where conflict arises.
Conflict between groups of people
Whenever people form groups, they tend to emphasize the things that make their group "better than" or "different from" other groups. This happens in the fields of sport, culture, religion and the workplace and can sometimes change from healthy competition to destructive conflict.
Conflict within a group of people
Even within one organization or team, conflict can arise from the individual differences or ambitions mentioned earlier; or from rivalry between sub-groups or factions. All leaders and members of the organization need to be alert to group dynamics that can spill over into conflict.
How to identify signs and stages of conflict
"Disputes of right" and "disputes of interest"
Especially in the workplace, two main types of disputes have been noted (although these two types may also happen in other situations). These are:
"Disputes of right", where people or groups are entitled by law, by contract, by previous agreement or by established practice to certain rights. Disputes of right will focus on conflict issues such as employment contracts, legally enforceable matters or unilateral changes in accepted or customary practices. A dispute of rights is, therefore, usually settled by legal decision or arbitration and not by negotiation.
"Disputes of interest", where the conflict may be a matter of opinion, such as where a person or group is entitled to some resources or privileges (such as access to property, better working conditions, etc). Because there is no established law or right, a dispute of interest will usually be solved through collective bargaining or negotiation.
Stages of conflict
The handling of conflict requires awareness of its various developmental stages. If leaders in the situation can identify the conflict issue and how far it has developed, they can sometimes solve it before it becomes much more serious. Typical stages include:
Where potential for conflict exists - in other words where people recognize that lack of resources, diversity of language or culture may possible result in conflict if people are not sensitive to the diversity.
Latent conflict where a competitive situation could easily spill over into conflict - e.g. at a political rally or in the workplace where there are obvious differences between groups of people.
Open conflict - which can be triggered by an incident and suddenly become real conflict.
Aftermath conflict - the situation where a particular problem may have been resolved but the potential for conflict still exists. In fact the potential may be even greater than before, if one person or group perceives itself as being involved in a win-loose situation.
Signs of conflict between individuals
In the organization leaders and members should be alert to signs of conflict between colleagues, so that they can be proactive in reducing or resolving the conflict by getting to the root of the issue. Typical signs may include:
-Colleagues not speaking to each other or ignoring each other
-Contradicting and bad-mouthing one another
Deliberately undermining or not co-operating with each other, to the downfall of the team
Signs of conflict between groups of people
Similarly, leaders and members can identify latent conflict between groups of people in the organization or the community and plan action before the conflict becomes open and destructive:
Cliques or factions meeting to discuss issues separately, when they affect the whole organization
One group being left out of organizing an event which should include everybody
Groups using threatening slogans or symbols to show that their group is right and the others are wrong.
How to build teamwork and co-operation (…and so minimize the possibility of conflict)
Teamwork and co-operation are essential in an organization which aims to be effective and efficient, and not likely to be divided by conflicting factions. The best teamwork usually comes from having a shared vision or goal, so that leaders and members are all committed to the same objectives and understand their roles in achieving those objectives. Important behaviors in achieving teamwork and minimizing potential conflict include a commitment by team members to:
Share information by keeping people in the group up-to-date with current issues
Express positive expectations about each other
Empower each other - publicly crediting colleagues who have performed well and encouraging each other to achieve results
Team-build - by promoting good morale and protecting the group's reputation with outsiders
Resolve potential conflict - by bringing differences of opinion into the open and facilitating resolution of conflicts.
Conflict management refers to the long-term management of intractable conflicts. It is the label for the variety of ways by which people handle grievances—standing up for what they consider to be right and against what they consider to be wrong. Those ways include such diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule, lynching, terrorism, warfare, feuding, genocide, law, mediation, and avoidance. Which forms of conflict management will be used in any given situation can be somewhat predicted and explained by the social structure—or social geometry—of the case.
Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict resolution. In order for actual conflict to occur, there should be an expression of exclusive patterns, and tell why the conflict was expressed the way it was. Conflict is not just about simple inaptness, but is often connected to a previous issue. The latter refers to resolving the dispute to the approval of one or both parties, whereas the former concerns an ongoing process that may never have a resolution. Neither is it considered the same as conflict transformation, which seeks to reframe the positions of the conflict parties.
Counseling
When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a helpful antidote. Although few organizations can afford the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff, given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or "listening with understanding", is little more than being a good listener—something every manager should be.
Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one's feelings—that is, to express them to a concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for the frustrated individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal difficulty that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and co-workers.
There is other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in appropriate circumstances. The great strength of the nondirective approach, however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. No one has ever been harmed by being listened to sympathetically and understandingly. On the contrary, this approach has helped many people to cope with problems that were interfering with their effectiveness on the job.
Basics of Conflict Management
Clarifying Confusion about Conflict
Conflict is when two or more values, perspectives and opinions are contradictory in nature and haven't been aligned or agreed about yet, including:
1. Within yourself when you're not living according to your values;
2. When your values and perspectives are threatened; or
3. Discomfort from fear of the unknown or from lack of fulfillment.
Conflict is inevitable and often good, for example, good teams always go through a "form, storm, norm and perform" period. Getting the most out of diversity means often-contradictory values, perspectives and opinions.
Conflict is often needed. It:
1. Helps to raise and address problems.
2. Energizes work to be on the most appropriate issues.
3. Helps people "be real", for example, it motivates them to participate.
4. Helps people learn how to recognize and benefit from their differences.
Conflict is not the same as discomfort. The conflict isn't the problem - it is when conflict is poorly managed that is the problem.
Conflict is a problem when it:
1. Hampers productivity.
2. Lowers morale.
3. Causes more and continued conflicts.
4. Causes inappropriate behaviors.
Types of Managerial Actions that Cause Workplace Conflicts
1. Poor communications
a. Employees experience continuing surprises; they aren't informed of new decisions, programs, etc.
b. Employees don't understand reasons for decisions, they aren't involved in decision-making.
c. As a result, employees trust the "rumor mill" more than management.
2. The alignment or the amount of resources is insufficient. There is:
a. Disagreement about "who does what".
b. Stress from working with inadequate resources.
3. "Personal chemistry", including conflicting values or actions among managers and employees, for example:
a. Strong personal natures don't match.
b. We often don't like in others what we don't like in ourselves.
4. Leadership problems, including inconsistent, missing, too-strong or uninformed leadership (at any level in the organization), evidenced by:
a. Avoiding conflict, "passing the buck" with little follow-through on decisions.
b. Employees see the same continued issues in the workplace.
c. Supervisors don't understand the jobs of their subordinates.
Key Managerial Actions / Structures to Minimize Conflicts
1. Regularly review job descriptions. Get your employee's input to them. Write down and date job descriptions. Ensure:
a. Job roles don't cob. No tasks "fall in a crack".
2. Intentionally build relationships with all subordinates.
a. Meet at least once a month alone with them in office.
b. Ask about accomplishments, challenges and issues.
3. Get regular, written status reports and include:
a. Accomplishments.
b. Currents issues and needs from management.
c. Plans for the upcoming period.
4. Conduct basic training about:
a. Interpersonal communications.
b. Conflict management.
c. Delegation.
5. Develop procedures for routine tasks and include the employees' input.
a. Have employees write procedures when possible and appropriate.
b. Get employees' review of the procedures.
c. Distribute the procedures.
d. Train employees about the procedures.
6. Regularly hold management meetings, for example, every month, to communicate new initiatives and status of current programs.
7. Consider an anonymous suggestion box in which employees can provide suggestions.
Ways People Deal With Conflict
There is no one best way to deal with conflict. It depends on the current situation. Here are the major ways that people use to deal with conflict.
1. Avoid it. Pretend it is not there or ignore it.
a. Use it when it simply is not worth the effort to argue. Usually this approach tends
to worsen the conflict over time.
2. Accommodate it. Give in to others, sometimes to the extent that you compromise yourself.
a. Use this approach very sparingly and infrequently, for example, in situations
when you know that you will have another more useful approach in the very
near future. Usually this approach tends to worsen the conflict over time, and
causes conflicts within yourself.
3. Competing. Work to get your way, rather than clarifying and addressing the issue. Competitors love accommodators.
a. Use when you have a very strong conviction about your position.
4. Compromising. Mutual give-and-take.
a. Use when the goal is to get past the issue and move on.
5. Collaborating. Focus on working together.
a. Use when the goal is to meet as many current needs as possible by using mutual
Resources. This approach sometimes raises new mutual needs.
b. Use when the goal is to cultivate ownership and commitment.
To Manage a Conflict within Yourself - "Core Process"
It's often in the trying that we find solace, not in getting the best solution. The following steps will help you in this regard.
1. Name the conflict, or identify the issue, including what you want that you aren't getting. Consider:
a. Writing your thoughts down to come to a conclusion.
b. Talk to someone, including asking them to help you summarize the conflict in 5
Sentences or less.
2. Get perspective by discussing the issue with your friend or by putting it down in writing. Consider:
a. How important is this issue?
b. Does the issue seem worse because you're tired, angry at something else, etc.?
c. What's your role in this issue?
3. Pick at least one thing you can do about the conflict.
a. Identify at least three courses of action.
b. For each course, write at least three pros and cons.
c. Select an action - if there is no clear course of action, pick the alternative that will not hurt, or be least hurtful, to yourself and others.
d. Briefly discuss that course of action with a friend.
4. Then do something.
a. Wait at least a day before you do anything about the conflict. This gives you
a cooling off period.
b. Then take an action.
c. Have in your own mind, a date when you will act again if you see no clear
improvement.
To Manage a Conflict with Another - "Core Process"
1. Know what you don't like about yourself, early on in your career. We often don't like in others what we don't want to see in ourselves.
a. Write down 5 traits that really bug you when see them in others.
b. Be aware that these traits are your "hot buttons".
2. Manage yourself. If you and/or the other person are getting heated up, then manage yourself to stay calm by
a. Speaking to the person as if the other person is not heated up - this can be very effective!
b. Avoid use of the word "you" - this avoids blaming.
c. Nod your head to assure them you heard them.
d. Maintain eye contact with them.
3. Move the discussion to a private area, if possible.
4. Give the other person time to vent.
a. Don't interrupt them or judge what they are saying.
5. Verify that you're accurately hearing each other. When they are done speaking:}
a. Ask the other person to let you rephrase (uninterrupted) what you are hearing from
them to ensure you are hearing them.
b. To understand them more, ask open-ended questions. Avoid "why" questions -
those questions often make people feel defensive.
6. Repeat the above step, this time for them to verify that they are hearing you. When you present your position
a. Use "I", not "you".
b. Talk in terms of the present as much as possible.
c. Mention your feelings.
7. Acknowledge where you disagree and where you agree.
8. Work the issue, not the person. When they are convinced that you understand them:
a. Ask "What can we do fix the problem?" They will likely begin to complain again.
Then ask the same question. Focus on actions they can do, too.
9. If possible, identify at least one action that can be done by one or both of you.
a. Ask the other person if they will support the action.
b. If they will not, then ask for a "cooling off period".
10. Thank the person for working with you.
11. If the situation remains a conflict, then:
a. Conclude if the other person's behavior conflicts with policies and procedures in the workplace and if so, present the issue to your supervisor.
b. Consider whether to agree to disagree.
c. Consider seeking a third party to mediate.
How to manage and resolve conflict situations
Collective bargaining
Especially in workplace situations, it is necessary to have agreed mechanisms in place for groups of people who may be antagonistic (e.g. management and workers) to collectively discuss and resolve issues. This process is often called "collective bargaining", because representatives of each group come together with a mandate to work out a solution collectively. Experience has shown that this is far better than avoidance or withdrawal, and puts democratic processes in place to achieve "integrative problem solving", where people or groups who must find ways of co-operating in the same organization, do so within their own agreed rules and procedures.
Conciliation
The dictionary defines conciliation as "the act of procuring good will or inducing a friendly feeling". South African labor relations legislation provides for the process of conciliation in the workplace, whereby groups who are in conflict and who have failed to reach agreement, can come together once again to attempt to settle their differences. This is usually attempted before the more serious step of a strike by workers or a lock-out by management is taken; and it has been found useful to involve a facilitator in the conciliation process. Similarly, any other organization (e.g. sports club, youth group or community organization) could try conciliation as a first step.
The difference between negotiation, mediation, and arbitration
Three methods of resolving situations that have reached the stage of open conflict are often used by many different organizations. It is important to understand these methods, so that people can decide which methods will work best for them in their specific conflict situation:
Negotiation: this is the process where mandated representatives of groups in a conflict situation meet together in order to resolve their differences and to reach agreement. It is a deliberate process, conducted by representatives of groups, designed to reconcile differences and to reach agreements by consensus. The outcome is often dependent on the power relationship between the groups. Negotiations often involve compromise - one group may win one of their demands and give in on another. In workplaces Unions and management representative usually sue negotiations to solve conflicts. Political and community groups also often use this method.
Mediation: when negotiations fail or get stuck, parties often call in and independent mediator. This person or group will try to facilitate settlement of the conflict. The mediator plays an active part in the process, advises both or all groups, acts as intermediary and suggests possible solutions. In contrast to arbitration (see below) mediators act only in an advisory capacity - they have no decision-making powers and cannot impose a settlement on the conflicting parties. Skilled mediators are able to gain trust and confidence from the conflicting groups or individuals.
Arbitration: means the appointment of an independent person to act as an adjudicator (or judge) in a dispute, to decide on the terms of a settlement. Both parties in a conflict have to agree about who the arbitrator should be, and that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on them all. Arbitration differs from mediation and negotiation in that it does not promote the continuation of collective bargaining: the arbitrator listens to and investigates the demands and counter-demands and takes over the role of decision-maker. People or organizations can agree on having either a single arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators whom they respect and whose decision they will accept as final, in order to resolve the conflict.
How to be an effective mediator
An effective mediator needs certain skills in order to achieve credibility and results:
Preferably a proven record of success in mediation or negotiation the ability to gain the trust, acceptance and co-operation of conflicting parties clear thinking in identifying the real problems and offering practical solutions knowledgeable about the organizational structures, strategies and attitudes of the conflicting parties; as well as any relevant laws or agreement tactful and diplomatic with the necessary powers of persuasion and strong character to nudge the participants progressively towards an agreement.
How to run a mediation process
The mediation process can be broadly divided into the following three stages:
Stage 1: Introduction and establishment of credibility
During the first stage, the mediator plays a passive role. The main task is to gain the trust and acceptance of the conflicting parties, so that they begin to believe that he/she will be capable of assisting them fairly as a person on whom they can rely at all times. An experienced mediator will leave most of the talking to the disputing parties, but will listen attentively and ask probing questions to pinpoint the causes of the dispute, obstacles to a possible settlement and to identify the issues in order of priority. Once credibility is achieved and sufficient background knowledge gained, the mediator may begin to persuade the parties to resume negotiations, possibly with a fresh perspective.
Stage 2: Steering the negotiation process
In the second stage, the mediator intervenes more actively in steering the negotiations. He/she may offer advice to the parties, attempt to establish the actual resistance point of each party and to discover areas in which compromises could be reached. The mediator will encourage parties to put forward proposals and counter-proposals and (when a solution appears feasible) will begin to urge or even pressurize the participants towards acceptance of a settlement.
Stage 3: Movement towards a final settlement
An experienced mediator will know when to use diplomacy and when to exert pressure towards final settlement of the dispute. Timing and sensitivity to personalities and strategic positions is important to maintain credibility and avoid rejection by one or more parties in the process. He/she might use bi-lateral discussions with individuals or groups and during the final stages may actually suggest or draft proposals for consideration. In the event of a final settlement being reached, the mediator usually assists the parties in the drafting of their agreement, ensuring that both sides are satisfied with the wording, terms and conditions of the agreement.
The process of mediation is dynamic and finely-tuned. A good mediator has to be flexible and inventive, must ensure that his/her personal values are not imposed on the conflicting parties. At most a mediator can advise, persuade or cajole them towards agreement.
Conflict Management Skills
Beth just got turned down by Carlos, the mechanic. She had asked Carlos to plan on working a couple of overtime hours this coming Thursday and Friday evenings. Beth's nose was a bit bent out of joint. She wondered if Carlos did not yield to her because she was too kind when she asked. Or, because she was a woman. Or, because Carlos was envious that she got the supervisory position for which both had competed. Carlos was uncomfortable with the interaction, too.
If Carlos had no clue that Beth was upset, would this scene still constitute interpersonal conflict? Perhaps. The seeds of conflict are planted when disharmony is felt within any one of the participants. Next time Beth approaches Carlos she may change her approach. She may be more abrupt, leading Carlos to wonder if Beth got up on the wrong side of the bed. Carlos may then, in turn, react negatively to Beth, thus escalating the conflict. Individuals sometimes encounter stress and negative emotion out of an interaction—whether or not they ever confront each other about their feelings.
Wherever choices exist there is potential for disagreement. Such differences, when handled properly, can result in richer, more effective, creative solutions and interaction. But alas, it is difficult to consistently turn differences into opportunities. When disagreement is poorly dealt with, the outcome can be contention. Contention creates a sense of psychological distance between people, such as feelings of dislike, bitter antagonism, competition, alienation, and disregard.
Whether dealing with family members or hired personnel, sooner or later challenges will arise. It is unlikely that we find ourselves at a loss of words when dealing with family members. Communication patterns with those closest to us are not always positive, however, often falling into a predictable and ineffective exchange.
With hired personnel and strangers, we may often try and put forth our best behavior. Out of concern for how we are perceived, we may err in saying too little when things go wrong. We may suffer for a long time before bringing issues up. This is especially so during what could be called a "courting period." Instead of saying things directly, we often try to hint.
But the honeymoon is likely to end sooner or later. At some point this "courting behavior" often gets pushed aside out of necessity. We may find it easier to sweep problems under the psychological rug until the mound of dirt is so large we cannot help but trip over it. Sometime after that transition is made, it may become all too easy to start telling the employee or co-worker exactly what has to be done differently. An isolated episode such as the one between Beth and Carlos may or may not affect their future working relationship.
Persons differ in their sensitivity to comments or actions of others, as well as their ability to deal with the stress created by a conflict situation. While it is important that we are sensitive to how we affect others, there is much virtue in not taking offense easily ourselves. Or by finding constructive outlets to dissipate stressful feelings (e.g., exercise, music, reading, an act of service to another, or even a good night's sleep). It does little good, however, to appear unaffected while steam builds up within and eventually explodes.
When disagreements emerge it is easy to hear without listening. People involved in conflict often enlist others to support their perspective and thus avoid trying to work matters out directly with the affected person.
Our self-esteem is more fragile than most of us would like to admit. Unresolved conflict often threatens whatever self-esteem we may possess. By finding someone who agrees with us, we falsely elevate that self-esteem. But we only build on sand. Our self-esteem will be constructed over a firmer foundation when we learn to deal effectively with the conflict. In Spanish there are two related words, self-esteem is called autoestima, while false self-esteem is called Amor propio (literally, "self-love").
It takes more skill, effort and commitment--and, at least in the short run, more stress--to face the challenge together with the other person involved in the dispute. Certainly it seems as if it would be easier to fight, withdraw, or give in. Yet in the long run, working through difficulties together will help us live a less stressful and more fulfilling life.
Fighting it out. A man sat in his train compartment looking out into the serene Russian countryside. Two women entered to join him. One held a lap dog. The women looked at this man with contempt, for he was smoking. In desperation, one of the women got up, lifted up the window, took the cigar off the man’s lips, and threw it out. The man sat there for a while, and then proceeded to re-open the window, grab the woman’s dog from off her lap, and throw it out the window. No, this is not a story from today’s Russian newspaper, instead it is from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s 19th century novel, The Idiot. The number and seriousness of workplace violence cases in agriculture seems to be on the rise, and farm employers can respond with effective policies and increased education.
Yielding. While most can readily see the negative consequences and ugliness of escalating contention, we often do not consider how unproductive and harmful withdrawing or giving in can be. Naturally, there are occasions when doing so is not only wise, but honorable (as there are times to stand firm). If a person feels obligated to continually give in and let another have his way, such yielding individual may stop caring and withdraw psychologically from the situation.
Avoidance. When we engage in avoidance, it only weakens already fragile relationships. These "others" (e.g., sympathetic co-workers) usually tend to agree with us. They do so not just because they are our friends, but mostly because they see the conflict and possible solutions from our perspective. After all, they heard the story from us. Once a person has the support of a friend, she may feel justified in her behavior and not try to put as much energy into solving the conflict.
One particularly damaging form of conflict avoidance is to send someone else to deliver a message or confront another on our behalf. At best, the individual not spoken to directly will be hurt that such a tactic was taken. At worst, the go-between person cherishes the power trip involved, allowing himself to become a sort of arbiter in the conflict.
We often are too quick to assume that a disagreement has no possible mutually acceptable solution. Talking about disagreements may result in opportunities to strengthen relationships and improve productivity. Obviously, talking problems through is not so easy. Confronting an issue may require
(1) Exposing oneself to ridicule or rejection,
(2) Recognizing we may have contributed to the problem, and
(3) Willingness to change.
We can reduce stress, resolve challenges and increase productivity through effective dialogue. Such a conversation entails as much listening as talking. While effective two-way exchanges will happen naturally some of the time, for the most part they need to be carefully planned. There may be some pain--or at least moving us out of our comfort zones--involved in discussing challenging issues, but the rewards are satisfaction and improved long-term relationships.
When faced with challenges, we tend to review possible alternatives and come up with the best solution given the data at hand. Unwanted options are discarded. While some decisions may take careful consideration, analysis, and even agony, we solve others almost instinctively. Our best solution becomes our position or stance in the matter. Our needs, concerns and fears all play a part in coming up with such a position. Misunderstanding and dissent can grow their ugly heads when our solution is not the same as those of others.
Several foes often combine to create contention:
Our first enemy is the natural need to want to explain our side first. After all, we reason, if they understand our perspective, they will come to the same conclusions we did.
Our second enemy is our ineffectiveness as listeners. Listening is much more than being quiet so we can have our turn. It involves a real effort to understand another person's perspective.
Our third enemy is fear. Fear that we will not get our way. Fear of losing something we cherish. Fear we will be made to look foolish or lose face. Fear of the truth ... that we may be wrong.
Our fourth enemy is the assumption that one of us has to lose if the other is going to win: that such differences can only be solved competitively.
The good news is that there are simple and effective tools to spin positive solutions and strengthen relationships out of disagreements. But let not the simplicity of the concepts obscure the challenge of carrying them out consistently. Certainly life gives us plenty of opportunities to practice and attempt to improve. However, the foes outlined above take effort to overcome.
Tools for Improved Communication
Two principles have contributed greatly to the productive handling of disagreements. The first, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," was introduced by Steven Covey, in Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.1 If we encourage others to explain their side first, they will be more apt to listen to ours.
For instance, I sometimes need to interview farm personnel about their feelings on various subjects. One day I came across a farm owner who was less than enthusiastic about my project.
It was clear from his words and tone that I would not be interviewing anyone on his farm, so I switched my focus to listening. The farmer shared concerns on a number of troublesome issues and we parted amiably. When I was on my way to my vehicle the farmer yelled, "Go ahead!"
"Go ahead and what?" I turned around and inquired. To my surprise he responded, "Go ahead and interview my workers." The Covey principle was at work.
The second principle, introduced by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their seminal work, Getting to Yes,2 is that people in disagreement should focus on their needs rather than on their positions. By concentrating on positions, we tend to underscore our disagreements. When we concentrate on needs, we find we have more in common than what we had assumed. Ury and Fisher suggest we attempt to satisfy the sum of both their needs and our needs.
When the light goes on we realize that it is not a zero sum game (where one person has to lose for the other to win). Nor is it necessary to solve disagreements with a lame compromise. Instead, often both parties can be winners. Individuals can learn how to keep communication lines open and solve challenges when things go wrong. Learning to disagree amicably and work through problems is perhaps one of the most important interpersonal skills we can develop.
Putting it all together
If we come right out and tell someone, "I disagree," we are apt to alienate that person. Successful negotiators are more likely to label their intentions, such as a desire to ask a difficult question or provide a suggestion, and are less prone to label disagreement.3 Problems are likely, however, to increase if we put all our needs aside to focus on another person’s perspective. The other party may think we have no needs and be quite taken back when we introduce them all of a sudden, almost as an afterthought.
In order to avoid such unproductive shock, I like the idea of briefly saying something along these lines. "I see that we look at this issue from different perspectives. While I want to share my needs and views with you later, let me first focus on your thoughts, needs, and observations." At this point, we can now put our needs aside, attempt to truly listen, and say: "So, help me understand what your concerns are regarding ...."
That is the easy part. The difficulty comes in fulfilling such a resolution to really listen to resist the tendency to interrupt with objections no matter how unfounded some of the comments may be. Instead of telling someone that we understand (just so they can finish and give us a turn to present our perspective), we can be much more effective by revealing exactly what it is that we understand. All along we must resist, as we listen, the temptation to bring up our viewpoints and concerns. In trying to comprehend, we may need to put our understanding in terms of a question, or a tentative statement. This way we show true awareness.
We may have to refine our statement until the other stakeholder approves it as a correct understanding of his position or need. It is necessary not only to understand, but for the other person to feel understood. Only now can we begin to explain our perspective and expect to be fully listened to. Once we have laid out our concerns, we can focus on a creative solution. If we have had no history with someone, or a negative one, we need to use more caution when disagreeing. The potential for a disagreement to be side-railed into contention is always there. It helps if we have made goodwill deposits over time.
Involving a Third Party
Sometimes differences in organizational level, personality or self-esteem among the participants in a disagreement require the participation of a third party. For instance, one supervisor had resorted to bullying and implied threats to get his way. "I would have gladly tried to find a way to help my supervisor achieve his goals," the subordinate explained through her tears. "But now I am so sensitized, I am afraid of talking to him."
Telling employees to work out their troubles on their own, grow up, or shake hands and get along may work occasionally, but most of the time the conflict will only be sent underground to resurface later in more destructive ways.
A better approach is to allow employees to meet with a third party, or mediator (which, in some cases, may be a manager or the farm owner), to assist them in their own resolution of the conflict.
All things being equal, an outside mediator has a greater chance of succeeding. An insider may be part of the problem, may be perceived as favoring one of the stakeholders, and the stakeholders may be hesitant to share confidential information with an insider.
If the insider is a supervisor, the mediator role becomes more difficult, as supervisors tend to become overly directive, taking more of an arbiter's role and forcing a decision upon the parties.
The conflict management process is more apt to succeed if stakeholders have respect for the mediator's integrity, impartiality, and ability. Respect for the mediator is important, so stakeholders will be on their best behavior, an important element in successful negotiation. Although not always the case, over-familiarity with an inside mediator may negate this "best behavior" effect.
An outside mediator should treat issues with confidentiality. Exceptions are such instances as where illegal activities have taken place (e.g., sexual harassment).
All parties should be informed of exceptions to the confidentiality rule ahead of time. Any sharing of information based on the exceptions needs to be done on a need-to-know basis to minimize giving out information that could hurt one or both of the parties. Employees may be less hesitant to speak out when assured of confidentiality. Sometimes conflicts involve personal issues.
A much more sensitive situation involves the role of the mediator when stakeholders are not able to come to a negotiated resolution. Researchers have found that, in some instances, mediation works best when the third party is able to change roles, and in the event that mediation fails, become an arbiter. On the plus side, stakeholders may put their best foot forward and try hard to resolve issues. Unfortunately, while some mediators may be able to play both roles without manipulating the situation, the road is left wide open for abuse of power. Furthermore, individuals may feel coerced and not trust a mediator when what is said in confidence now may be taken against them later.
Expertise