THE WORKPLACE MEDIATOR 34 SECTION THREE: PUTTING CONFLICT …

THE WORKPLACE MEDIATOR’S HANDBOOK | 34

© THE TCM GROUP l WWW.THETCMGROUP.COM

SECTION THREE:

PUTTING CONFLICT INTO

CONTEXT

This section includes course notes, handouts and articles related to workplace

conflict.





What is conflict?

Conflict is a normal, natural and inevitable aspect of working life.

"Conflict occurs when an individual (or a group of individuals), believe that another individual (or a

group of individuals) is preventing them from achieving their needs or goals; preventing access to

the resources they need to achieve their needs or goals; or preventing them from expressing their

values or beliefs in a way which they consider to be reasonable. Our actions, our reactions and our

interactions determine whether the conflict becomes and remains constructive or whether it

becomes destructive… “

David Liddle, 2009

Destructive conflict is not healthy – it is avoidable, and it is escapable.

The root cause of destructive conflict is a sense of loss arising from our unmet needs (Loss of

confidence, face, esteem etc.) The loss triggers negative emotions and behaviours which can

become, hostile, divisive and eventually harmful.



How and why do conflicts escalate?

According to extensive research undertaken at the TCM Group, we have identified 5 distinct stages

to conflict:

The 5 stages of conflict

Stage 1: The pre-conflict stage

This stage relates predominantly to the underlying or root causes of conflict. For instance, change

and conflict are inextricably linked, and one often drives the other. Other factors include the role of

the leadership, functional, systemic and structural factors, cultural and political factors or factors

relating to the distribution of resources or rewards.

Stage 2: The early conflict stage

This stage develops as the parties experience the initial stages of the conflict - often referred to as

‘fight or flight’. The parties’ positions may harden, and communication becomes limited and

disrupted. Alliances and cliques begin to form, and the parties blame each other for the problem. As

parties ‘enter the conflict zone’, divergence between one or more of their needs, goals or

expectations begin to emerge. This leads to a sense of frustration and anxiety for the parties and the

early warning signs may include reduced communication, hostility, inappropriate behaviours and

attempts to isolate one another. The parties adopt a series of positions to communicate their own

points of view, which can become mutually exclusive and seemingly irreconcilable. This adds to the

frustration, anger and a sense of mistrust for all parties as their positions are not accepted or

realised. Frequently at this stage, the parties lose sight of common ground and focus on the factors

that have driven them apart.



Resolving differences at this early stage and encouraging the parties to ‘let off steam’, step back and

talk the issues through can be very valuable. By engaging the parties in a process of open and honest

dialogue, positions can be softened, behaviours changed, attitudes realigned, and dialogue

developed. However, many managers miss this vital opportunity to ‘nip the conflict in the bud’,

leaving the conflict to fester so it requires only a spark to ignite it and throw all parties into an

uncontrollable and destructive spiral of stressful and damaging conflict.

Taking a stand

The parties are immersed in ‘the conflict zone’. Though they may still be prepared to engage in

dialogue, if their efforts to seek a resolution are fruitless, they will start to doubt that a solution can

be found, and they will question the ‘reasonableness’ of the other party. As the conflict escalates

and rational communication is replaced with emotional confrontation, the parties may become more

forceful in pushing their positions. All focus is now on winning.

At this stage, the protagonists may try to forge alliances with people they believe will support and

strengthen their position. Inflexibility and stubbornness become the staple diet of the conflict and

tactics may appear confused, irrational and increasingly aggressive. These behaviours, however,

reflect the parties’ perceptions of reality - their ‘truth’. In conflict, our sense of the ‘truth’ is extremely

powerful, and any attempts to force parties to accept another ‘truth’ may be viewed with suspicion.

It is hard for parties to listen at this stage. They are planning their strategy, and the ability to

empathise is one factor which is seriously undermined.

Stage 3: The mid conflict stage

This stage often sees the parties engaging in coercive and destructive tactics to ‘win’ the conflict (I

win; you lose). Often this is a very challenging period for managers and HR and is typified by increased

grievances, allegations, absence and stress for all parties.

The blame game

As the conflict escalates, the parties’ tactics are aimed at gaining and maintaining the upper hand.

Both parties are convinced they are in the right and that the threat to their values, needs, goals or

expectations is real and substantial. The language of blame becomes the language of the conflict…

• “You should back down …you are wrong”

• “They always behave like this and should be punished”

• “If it wasn’t for them…”

• “You’re the manager; you do something about them…”

This language is aimed at presenting the other party as the wrongdoer and influencing decision-

makers to take their side. It can become increasingly threatening, sometimes even aggressive and

violent. The parties are being driven by their emotional responses and may experience symptoms of

stress and anxiety. They may try to project an image of righteousness and strength while absolving

themselves of responsibility for the conflict.



The blame game prevents protagonists from looking inward and maintains an unhealthy focus on

the tactics and games being played. Any reasonable attempts to engage the parties in

communication may result in bickering, arguments and hostility. It is unusual for either party in a

conflict to win the blame game….

Actions speak louder than words

Not unsurprisingly, as the conflict escalates, the communication and dialogue trail off with the

parties beginning to feel further debate is unlikely to resolve anything. The parties develop strategies

that will make the other side back down and yield to their demands – they aim to block the

opposition from attaining their needs, goals and expectations whilst enabling theirs to be met. As

the communication process fades into distant memory, it is replaced with a series of non-verbal

signals and actions. The protagonists form stereotypical views of their counterparts based on

assumptions and prejudice. Typically, these are wholly inaccurate, but they are used to rationalise

and justify their own behaviour and activities. Tactics include:

1. Provoking the other person to act in a particular way

2. Trading insults and negative comments

3. Preventing the other party from accessing information, files, records etc.

4. Issuing threats and ultimate

Attack and counter attack

These threats and ultimately become increasingly rigid and inflexible. As the conflict continues, the

parties start to view each other as almost sub-human. They react violently to one another and may

experience high levels of anxiety in each other’s presence. Given the codes and norms of the

workplace, it probably won’t be easy for them to engage in open hostility, so the attacks and counter

attacks become increasingly subversive and devious.

The parties may start to feel out of control and their alliances begin to fail as the conflict becomes

more serious and threatening. They may lose sight of their strategy and begin to demand immediate

actions from their counterparts, some of which will leave them with little room for manoeuvre. If it

hadn’t already, the conflict will now have taken over and the parties are entirely locked in. To back

down now would end in a loss of face, submission and failure.

At this stage, the parties may seek external assistance, sometimes as a tactic to strengthen their

position, sometimes as a genuine cry for help and support.



Stage 4: The late conflict stage

This stage sees the conflict erupt and become all consuming. Alternatively, the conflict slowly ‘eats

away’ to such a great extent that a previously well performing team begins to fail and implode. Either

way, the cost of the conflict can be significant, extensive and often formal procedure or court action

is the outcome. At this stage, the fight or flight response is extremely powerful, and the basis of the

parties’ activities is survival at all costs. In the workplace, the parties are at war. The smallest spark

could result in an all-out offensive and the normal rules of engagement have been tossed in the bin.

The parties engage in often brutal and increasingly desperate attacks and seek to inflict as much

damage on the other as possible. They will seek to damage their opponent’s reputation, integrity,

power base and alliances. They may lash out blindly and may even seek to inflict damage upon other

staff, managers, representatives, mediators or negotiators.

As the conflict grows in intensity and sucks other people in, the pressure increases, and the parties

experience extreme levels of stress. Then BANG - suddenly, like a volcano, it explodes or like a

collapsing building it implodes. At this time, the conflict will be potentially highly dangerous with

very little consideration of personal needs; it is about winning at any cost. This can have a number

of outcomes, including: both parties being subjected to disciplinary action; one or both parties

pursuing grievances; one or both parties being dismissed; a criminal investigation; or litigation by the

parties or the organisation.

Stage 5: The post conflict stage

Of course, someone has to meet the needs of the customers, deliver the services, heal the patients,

drive the lorries, deliver the post etc. It is often up to HR and managers to pick up the pieces and to

retain a balance between the needs of the parties and the needs of the business. This is never an

easy task, yet it is made even harder when the parties believe that they are right and everyone else

is wrong.

What can managers and HR do?

An effective conflict management or dispute resolution strategy should take account of the 5

different stages of conflict and should enable managers and HR to recognise the nature of conflict at

each stage.

Moreover, a workplace dispute resolution strategy should provide the parties in dispute, their

managers and HR with an effective range of measures to help resolve the conflict swiftly, effectively

and, most importantly, constructively.



Constructive and destructive conflict

Based upon a model from ‘Playing with Fire’ (1992)

Nic Fine and Fiona Macbeth; LEAP Confronting Conflict/Youth Work Press

This figure represents the two extremes of conflict and what actions may be required to take a

conflict on a destructive or constructive path.

The ingredients are the people concerned, their personality, ideas, values etc. The combinations and

conditions are the factors that contribute to the conflict (people, power, politics, culture,

environment, leadership etc.) The spark is the immediate event or incident that triggers things off.

Conflict can develop in different ways from here. The left-hand column depicts potentially

destructive conflict and involves our typical image of negative conflict. The right-hand column

depicts more constructive responses which may in turn lead to improved communication,

understanding, trust, respect and tolerance.

Ingredients

Combinations and Conditions

Spark



What is your conflict management style?

From Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument also known as the TKI (Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc., 1974–2009)

Avoiding – “The Turtle” (withdrawing)

Turtles withdraw into their shells to avoid conflict. They give up their personal goals

and relationships. They stay away from the issues over which the conflict is taking

place and the people they are in conflict with. Turtles believe it is easier to withdraw

(physically and psychologically) from a conflict rather than face it.

Competing – “The Shark” (forcing)

Sharks try to overpower opponents by forcing them to accept their solution to

the conflict. Their goals are highly important to them and their relationship is of

minor importance. Sharks seek to achieve their own goals at all costs. They are

not concerned about the needs of other people. They do not care if other people

like or accept them. Sharks assume that one person winning and the other

person losing settles conflicts. Sharks want to be the winner. Winning gives sharks a sense of pride

and achievement. Losing gives them a sense of inadequacy and failure. They try to win by

attacking, overpowering, overwhelming and intimidating others.

Accommodating – “The Teddy Bear” (smoothing)

To teddy bears the relationship is of great importance while their own goals are of

little importance. Teddy bears want to be accepted and liked by other people. They

think that conflict should be avoided in favour of harmony and believe that if the

conflict continues, someone will get hurt and that would ruin the relationship.

Teddy bears give up their goal to preserve the relationship. Teddy bears say, “I’ll give up what I

want and let you have what you want in order for you us to get along.” Teddy bears try to smooth

over the conflict and avoid causing harm.

Compromising – “The fox”

Foxes are moderately concerned with their own goals and about the relationship

with other people. Foxes seek compromise. They give up a part of their goals and

persuade the other person in conflict to give up part of his or her goals.

Foxes seek a solution to conflict where both sides gain something- the middle

ground between two positions. They are willing to sacrifice part of their goals and

relationships in order to find agreement for the common good.



Collaborating – “The owl”

Owls highly value their own goals and relationships. They view conflicts as

problems to be solved and seek a solution that achieves both their own goals

and the goals of the other person involved in the conflict. Owls see conflict as an

opportunity for improving relationships by reducing tension between two

people. They try to begin a discussion that identifies the conflict as a problem. By seeking

solutions that satisfy both themselves and the other person, owls maintain the relationship. Owls

are not satisfied until a solution is found that achieves their own goals and the other person’s

goals. Owls are not satisfied until the tensions and negative feelings have been fully resolved.



The 3 components of most conflicts

Most conflicts are basically made up of three separate components: content, interaction and

expectations.

1. Content

This describes individual’s concerns. It tells us what the conflict is about from their

perspective. Within conflict and particularly at the early stages of mediation, we are often

faced with a variety of differing accounts. This is natural and indicates that the contents are

different according to individual perspectives. Often there is limited commonality about

the content of the dispute.

2. Interaction

This describes how people behave towards one another and their feelings towards one

another. The interaction will be based upon how an individual perceives the conflict along

with their own conflict management style. Generally, interactions, prior to mediation, have

been negative and harmful.

3. Expectations

This describes individual’s expectations of how they want the situation to be handled or

resolved. The expectations may often sound like a demand and are often put forward as

non-negotiable. Often expectations are outcome-orientated and are based on a premise of

blame. Typically, expectations seek a win/lose outcome.



The role of the mediator

Content

Mediators need to be clear about the contents of a dispute. The content of the dispute can often be

seen as complex and confusing (this is why so many people chose to avoid dealing with it). As

mediators, we understand that people’s perception of the content of the conflict is affected by their

view of themselves, of the other person and the situation. Furthermore, we accept that people’s

view of the content of the conflict can be affected by their own prejudices, experiences, points of

view, beliefs, backgrounds, cultural viewpoints.

Interaction

Mediators seek to build positive, safe and constructive interactions between the parties. By

remaining un-phased, impartial and fair, you will gain the trust of all parties. As you work with all

parties, they will begin to have confidence in you and the process. By defusing anger and responding

to aggression in an assertive and non-threatening way, the parties will feel safe. This is vital for them

in order to feel that they can communicate with one another. Do not underestimate the importance

of your role and the process you are managing.

Expectations

Mediation encourages the parties to develop expectations of a process and outcome, which will

meet their underlying needs as well as the needs of other parties. These types of outcomes are

known as "win/win" outcomes and are explored in detail within the course. The mediator encourages

individuals to focus on their interests and needs rather than their rigid positions. They encourage

parties to focus on the future and learn from the past. Mediators help parties develop realistic

expectations, which meet the needs of all parties. Mediators also encourage parties to move away

from notions of blame. The use of ‘I’ statements rather than “you” statements is vital at this stage of

conflict management.



The ABC of conflict

Adapted from Working with Conflict, Skills and Strategies for Action. - S. Fisher et al- Responding to Conflict 2000

ABC can also be used to describe our own reactions to conflict:

- Affective Responses (emotional)

- Behavioural responses

- Cognitive Responses

Documents

THE WORKPLACE MEDIATOR 34 SECTION THREE: PUTTING CONFLICT …