Conflict Resolution & Negotiation

Section 1

According to the interactionist view, conflict is regarded as a positive drive within a group and is very necessary if the group is to perform effectively. (Hefferman, 2012) suggests that most organizations do not think, not because they do not want to but because they cannot since the employees or the management are too afraid of conflict. According to the speaker, organizational employees are fearful of raising issues or concerns at work due to the possible conflict they might provoke; they are afraid of engaging in arguments that they cannot manage since they fear to lose (Hefferman, 2012).

I tend to agree with Heffernan that most organizations do not think, and they approach conflict by avoiding it as opposed to applying an interactive or collaborative approach. Previously, I have worked with different organizations, mostly on a voluntary capacity. In one of the organizations, there was a sexual harassment issue between a supervisor and a subordinate. In fact, there had been several such cases previously, and some of them had been reported to the management. However, in this particular case, the victim could not communicate, be open or share her woes with the administration, probably because of escalating the conflict with the perpetrator, losing her job, or maybe because the management had not openly discussed or ready to discuss the previously filed cases.

But when the victim decided to share her concerns with a colleague, surprisingly, she also had experienced the same troubles with the same perpetrator, yet she had avoided talking about it. What was apparent with this organization’s management was that they could not create a favorable platform for employees to present their grievances, discuss them together, and think critically about how a solution could be obtained. In other words, there was no transparency, openness, communication, or collaborative efforts to thinking and analyzing an issue that had been prevalent for a while. This is because of the fear of failing to resolve or manage it, especially since it involved a highly-ranked organizational employee.

In most cases, when an issue that provokes a conflict has been raised in an organization, instead of employing conflict resolution approaches like collaboration, conflict avoidance, is instead applied (Shearouse, 2011). It should be noted that avoidance dismisses concerns of conflicting parties, meaning that the conflict remains unresolved. This approach leads to the escalation of problems, something that thwarts honest communication. On the contrary, collaboration is a win-win technique adopted in resolving conflict where managers depict high cooperation and assertiveness. However, within organizations, individuals do not favor it because it incorporates thinking, keeping an open mind, considering other people’s thinking, readiness to change (e.g., cultures, own thinking), and working and being creative together to find a win-win settlement (Shearouse, 2011). In other words, most organizations do not view conflict as an opportunity of thinking together to improve the group or team performance. They see it as being dysfunctional (that is, hindering team performance), and therefore, opt to avoid it.

To promote an organizational culture that favors thinking, collaborative efforts, and one that embraces and views conflict as a means to enhance group performance, specific changes must be implemented. First, a culture of free and open communication between the management and employees, amongst employees has to be promoted (Harper, 2013). In other words, openness is a necessary first step. With this openness, employees can stand up to their supervisors regarding conflicting issues, if need be. Secondly, the management must have the moral courage to think, incorporate others’ thinking, and collaborate with others that have opposing views, to effectively resolve conflicts. Last but not least, conflict resolution skills, abilities traits, and talents like excellent communication, extraversion, creativity, and open-mindedness are necessary to break the culture that organizations do not think (Harper, 2013).

In conclusion, organizations do not think because they are too afraid of conflict. In most cases, the apply avoidance approach when handling disputes instead of adopting the collaborative approach that could involve the thinking of others. Openness, skills, talents, provision of information, and moral courage to raise concerns are very crucial in identifying and resolving conflicts.

Section 2

Satisfaction Triangle

The satisfaction triangle model suggests that during conflict resolution, there are three unique; however, interconnected types of interests. First, all disputing parties will possess substantive interests associated with the conflict’s result or outcome. Secondly, every party has emotional/psychological interests linked to the feelings and thoughts held by the parties in the entire conflict mediation, or negotiation. Lastly, all parties have interests regarding the conflict resolution process (Shearouse, 2011).

Recently, I was involved in a conflict with my landlord, whereby a few weeks after having moved to my new apartment, there were some leaks on the roof that let in raindrops on my furniture. Therefore, I demanded my deposit back, something that led to a dispute because he wanted to fix it a few weeks later, instead of returning the deposit. We, therefore, collaboratively, involved a third-party as a mediator. To reach an agreement, the mediation process was fair, inclusive, timely, and transparent. Among the three perspectives of the satisfaction triangle, the conflict resolution process was closely related to my satisfaction.

Three Outcomes of a Conflict based on Each Satisfaction Triangle Perspective

I will use an example of interpersonal conflict between a wife and husband in which one of them has cheated on the other. Consequently, if the victim is caught, a dispute will arise that needs to be resolved. Based on the satisfaction triangle perspective, three outcomes could be possible, each for every perspective.

The perspective of ‘process’ is concerned with how the agreement is made. In other words, it entails the perception of the parties regarding the conflict resolution process (Furlong, 2015). In this example, the wife could see the process as fair and transparent while the husband could perceive it as being biased or lacking transparency. It all depends on how the party perceives the process.

The perspective of ‘result’ entails what each participant wants to achieve out of the negotiation or mediation process. In the example presented, the wife may wish to divorce while the husband may want to divorce plus joint custody of the children.

The emotional/psychological perspective focuses on feelings and thoughts brought by the parties in the mediation process. In the conflict described above, the wife may want revenge/apology while the husband may want to be heard or listened to.

Levels of Conflict

There are five levels, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, and intra-organizational. A conflict can reach all the five levels depending on its complexity and the approach in which it is being resolved (Shearouse, 2011). An example of a conflict that has passed through several of the above levels is a competition of two employees for promotion for the position of general manager of an organization.

Such a conflict can start at an interpersonal level whereby two potential candidates. At this level, the dispute may arise due to factors like status or power differences, personality differences, clashes of interests and values as well as different perceptions regarding things like education, training, and experiences (Shearouse, 2011). These two competitors may be in the same group or team in the organization, and that team is expected to produce one candidate; this makes it an intragroup conflict whereby the group members must choose one of them. In the organization, there could be several departments whereby each is expected to produce one of their members as a potential candidate. At this stage, the conflict becomes an intergroup/inter-departmental conflict since each group has varied perceptions, values, and beliefs that are unique to the choice of their candidate. Since the conflict is now between departments, it can now be considered as a horizontal conflict, a typical feature of the intra-organizational conflict.

Suggestions for Addressing the above Conflict

If a conflict becomes complex such that it moves through several levels, collaboration becomes an effective approach to resolve it (Shearouse, 2011). Here, all parties to the conflict will table their interests such that they are known to others. Through transparency, honesty, openness, and provision of the relevant information, a solution is sought in which every party’s interests are considered and served. This approach is helpful because there are cooperation, goodwill, and commitment to finding a solution. Again, there is an inclusion of all the disputing parties.

In conclusion, the satisfaction triangle focuses on three perspectives or interests that parties are concerned about i.e., result/outcome, the process, and the emotions/psychological feelings and thoughts.  In a conflict, there are five possible levels, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, and intra-organizational. A complex conflict can effectively be managed by applying collaborative efforts.

References

Furlong, G. (2015). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox(3rd ed.). Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley and Sons.

Harper, G. (2013). The Joy of Conflict Resolution: Transforming Victims, Villains, and Heroes in the Workplace and at Home. New Society Publishers.

Hefferman, M. (2012). Dare to Disagree. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=PY_kd46RfVE&feature=youtu.be.

Shearouse, S. (2011). Conflict 101: A Manager’s Guide to Resolving Problems So Everyone Can Get Back to Work(1st ed.). Amacom. ISBN-13: 978-0814417119.