Dealing With Conflict
Dealing with Conflict
Leader’s Guide
Alexander Watson Hiam
HRD Press, Inc. • Amherst • Massachusetts
Copyright © 2005, Alexander Hiam
All rights reserved. No other part of this Leader’s Guide may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Published by: HRD Press, Inc.
22 Amherst Road
Amherst, MA 01002
800-822-2801 (U.S. and Canada)
413-253-3488
413-253-3490 (fax)
ISBN 0-87425-505-8
Production services by Anctil Virtual Office
Cover design by Eileen Klockars
Editorial services by Sally M. Farnham
Table of Contents
Introduction and Recommendations v
Part I. Dealing with Conflict Instrument 1
About the Instrument 3
Administering the Instrument 9
Part II. Modules for Teaching Conflict Management 15
(These modules correspond to sections in the Participant Coursebook)
Module 1: Exploring Conflict 17
Module 2: Understanding Your Style 33
Module 3: Which Style Should You Use? 39
Module 4: How to Raise Conflict IQ 51
Module 5: Advanced Techniques for Competition and Collaboration 57
Appendix: Management Training Topic: Conflict and Motivation 85
Introduction and Recommendations
If you have your own course design and simply wish to use the Dealing with Conflict Instrument within it, you will find all you need to know within Part I of this guide.
If you wish to administer the instrument as part of a conflict management course that lasts from a couple hours to a full day or more, you will find details of a modular curriculum in Part II. There is also an available Participant’s Coursebook for your participants.
The course content is highly activity based. The Participant Coursebook supports the activities. If you hand out the coursebook and the Dealing with Conflict Instrument to each participant, they will have all they need for an excellent training experience.
Some trainers will want to adopt the full curriculum offered in this guide, while others will choose to use component parts of it in their programs. Feel free to use certain activities or cases if you wish. Many trainers unbundle this content and create their own programs with
it. On the other hand, those who have delivered it in its entirety find it very effective as well.
My training associates and I have delivered many courses based on this content, sometimes integrating other activities and games, and in other cases simplifying the program by cutting some of the content in order to fit the client’s need. I have recently updated the course materials to reflect some of those experiences and to integrate the more successful and generally applicable activities for your use.
If you are interested in exploring additional options for teaching conflict or negotiation skills or have any other questions or suggestions, please let me know. Thank you.
Alex Hiam
Part I
|DWCI |Dealing with Conflict Instrument |
| | |
About the Instrument
The following sections explain how the Dealing with Conflict Instrument (DWCI) was developed and tested, and how users respond to it.
Instrument Development and Testing
The final version of the DWCI was tested on a diverse sample of employees and managers from more than 30 different organizations. Of the instruments distributed, 67 percent were returned, and all that were returned were completed fully and provided usable results. Results were generally consistent with earlier tests of samples of employees; when all the data is pooled, a consistent pattern of distribution of styles emerges from a set of data covering more than a hundred organizations and many hundreds of employees. Results are also generally consistent with the academic literature on conflict-handling styles, as well as with earlier studies conducted by the instrument developers on samples of business school students. (Statistical results from the DWCI test will be summarized in later sections.)
The final version of the DWCI was tested using two different distribution methods. About
one-third of the instruments were distributed in face-to-face training or supervisory contexts. Response rates were 100 percent in these contexts, even though employees realized that their personal results would be seen by others. They did not seem to have any hesitations about completing the instrument or sharing the results for use in the study, even though some of
them made comments suggesting that they were a little self-conscious about their approach
to conflict.
The rest of the instruments were distributed by mail to employees at a wide variety of companies throughout the United States. A brief cover note was included, asking for help
with the study and giving both mail and fax options for submission of the results. No follow-up was performed, yet roughly half of these instruments were completed and returned voluntarily. Again, employees did not seem overly concerned about confidentiality. Although the mailing was designed to permit and encourage anonymous responses, many respondents included personal notes or cover letters thanking us for giving them the opportunity to participate.
Some respondents even provided anecdotal reports on their specific reactions to the results
(see section entitled “Qualitative User Responses” for text of these comments).
Development History
The final round of testing reported here represents the culmination of a multi-year effort
by Alexander Hiam & Associates and the affiliated Human Interactions Assessment and Management development group to develop and test conflict-style instruments.
Six rounds of instrument testing and development over a five-year period further refined the assessments in the Flex-Style Negotiating product line and assessments published in a book from John Wiley & Sons, The Fast Forward MBA in Negotiating and Deal Making (Lewicki and Hiam, 1999). Alexander Hiam & Associates has also used several assessments similar in design to the DWCI in consultative and training contexts, which permitted testing of various protocols and instructions, as well as the refinement of supporting text based on typical participant questions and concerns.
In-depth interviews were also conducted by the developers and publishers with a variety of expert instrument users from the corporate-training and education fields in order to explore questions of format, design, and instructional content.
The five conflict-handling styles measured in the DWCI have been well defined through a long tradition of academic research, as reported in Think Before You Speak: A Complete Guide to Strategic Negotiation (Lewicki, Hiam, and Olander; Wiley, 1996) and many other sources.
The general approach to defining and measuring conflict-handling styles draws on a long series of assessments, tests, and training experiences conducted by the developers, as well as on a tradition of academic research. There are nevertheless some specifics of the DWCI that make it unique: In particular, it uses a copyrighted, original set of items designed to be easier to read and less dependent upon specific cultural experiences than are the items commonly used in earlier assessments and instruments.
In addition, this instrument is much shorter than earlier academic and commercial assessments. It uses only 15 forced-choice pairs, which is less than half the typical number of questions used in earlier assessments. As a result, the instrument is easier and quicker to use, which probably explains to a large degree the strongly positive reaction it has received from users in pilot tests.
A shorter instrument saves user and trainer time and makes it easier to obtain a more significant return on time invested—but only if the instrument works. In developing and testing items for the DWCI, we compared results from short and long versions and could find no significant differences in distribution of styles; this suggests that the shorter version is comparable to longer assessments in the way it measures conflict-handling style. We also found that users of the new, shorter instrument felt its results were appropriate and insightful (specific results are analyzed in later sections).
Another way to evaluate the validity of a short conflict-style instrument is to consider the number of items used to define each style. In spite of the short format of the DWCI, it does include six separate items for each of the five styles. There is close covariance in selection
of many of the same-style items, indicating that they are measuring the same underlying construct. And the use of six different items per construct also permits the instrument to measure multiple aspects of each individual construct. Six items per style seems to be
more than adequate to measure style usage. Little or nothing is gained by increasing the number of items, and something is definitely lost from the subject’s perspective when there is more complexity and redundancy. After experimenting with many formats, we concluded that longer conflict-style assessments are likely to generate subject resistance and not likely to provide better results than the DWCI. In fact, the DWCI measures more of the reported aspects of each conflict-handling style than do some of the earlier, longer instruments because other instruments tend to include more redundant items.
Statistical Distribution of Styles
In a multi-company employee sample representing 90 self-style analyses, the following distribution of styles was found:
|Style |Percent |
|Accommodate |19 |
|Avoid |9 |
|Compromise |12 |
|Compete |13 |
|Collaborate |47 |
Typically, a little less than half of the employees describe their styles as collaborative using
the DWCI. That means that about two-thirds of the time, one or both of the participants in a one-on-one workplace conflict are not natural collaborators, which explains why collaboration
is less common in the workplace than most managers would like it to be.
Also note that the proportion of collaborators is considerably lower in most organizations when the other version of the instrument is used. People who describe themselves as collaborators are often viewed as competitors by others, often because they have difficulty using their desired style in conflicts. Training and assessment activities can change this pattern.
Transparency
Most instrument users do not want to “see through” the instrument while taking it. If they recognize a pattern and guess what the items are measuring, they feel that their insight
makes the instrument less valuable. They worry that they are simply answering in order to
get the results they want. And from a methodological perspective, they are right. An obvious
or transparent instrument fails to measure underlying patterns or temperaments in most cases. Therefore, transparency is not desirable in an instrument such as this one.
In pre-tests of the DWCI, respondents were asked if they knew what the questions were getting at. And in the final test, some users volunteered information on this point as well. No users reported that the test was transparent. In general, respondents seemed to have no trouble focusing on the specific items and did not visualize any underlying pattern while completing the items. And in general, when they turned the page and analyzed their results, they experienced an aha! moment in which the underlying pattern became visible to them and they were suddenly able to see what had been measured. This experience is considered a desirable
and appropriate one by the instrument developers.
Style Dominance among Instrument Users
In general, roughly three-fourths of respondents have one style that is dominant (with a higher score than the other four). For example, in the 90-response multi-company employee sample used for the final pre-release test of the instrument, 72 percent of responses resulted in a single dominant style, 27 percent resulted in two-style ties, and 1 percent resulted in three-way ties.
In a training context, a tendency toward identifying single-style dominance is appropriate and expected. Many people do tend to rely upon a single conflict-handling style, especially under pressure. The instrument helps them identify that style and become more self-aware so that they can better understand how they react to conflict.
Some users will no doubt be surprised to find that it is possible to score equally high on two
or even three styles. They will wonder why they do not have a single dominant style. In a training context, the instructor can point out that people who are particularly effective at handling conflicts are good at using multiple styles and tend to show a more balanced distribution of scores. In fact, reducing the dominance of one style is a possible training objective.
Another common training objective is to shift more people toward a collaboration-dominant profile. This objective makes good sense when trainees work on complex issues in which collaboration is important. It also makes sense if the ultimate goal is to build employee motivation, since collaborative approaches help boost job motivation levels in the workplace. However, trainers should note that each style has its place; collaboration, in fact, is not appropriate in every situation. The information provided with the DWCI includes a diagram
and instructions to help trainees or employees identify the right style for each specific conflict situation.
Item-by-Item Analysis
Some facilitators and trainers express interest in the distribution of responses to specific items within the DWCI. The following table summarizes results in the multi-company sample used in the pre-release test of the instrument:
| |Percent Selecting |
|Item |A |B |
|1 |64% |36% |
|2 |74 |26 |
|3 |42 |58 |
|4 |39 |61 |
|5 |68 |32 |
|6 |72 |28 |
|7 |75 |25 |
|8 |71 |29 |
|9 |78 |22 |
|10 |74 |26 |
|11 |78 |22 |
|12 |26 |74 |
|13 |74 |26 |
|14 |20 |80 |
|15 |56 |44 |
As these results indicate, some choices are more popular than others, but none are selected
by less than one-fifth of users. Therefore, in most groups, at least one person will favor each
of the possible options in the forced-choice pairs. The results indicate that the instrument differentiates among respondents to a significant extent. Detailed statistics from other conflict instruments have not been made publicly available, so direct comparison or cross-instrument norming is not possible. The above distribution appears to be a reasonable one, given what
has been published about style preferences, and might even provide a norm for use by future researchers.
Qualitative User Responses
Employees who self-assessed using the DWCI in the initial tests were uniformly positive about the experience. All were able to complete the instrument and obtain usable results, although some did find one or more of the forced-choice pairs challenging. (Facilitators and trainers will probably field some questions along the lines of “Do I have to choose one of these? I don’t like either option.” Such responses are inevitable with forced-choice instruments, but are balanced by the simplicity and speed of a forced-choice design.)
When they examined their results, respondents found them useful and felt that they were accurate. No serious complaints about the instrument or the self-assessment experience were voiced in the various pre-release tests, which included several small-group discussions. And many respondents reported experiencing insights into their approach to conflict.
Some of those participating in the initial tests offered written comments. Since these give a good indication of the range of likely reactions, they are reproduced here. (Note that responses reflect reactions not only to the instrument itself, but also to the instructional information that accompanies it.)
“I thought it was personally enlightening and a good exercise.”
—Insurance company employee
“At first I wasn’t sure how to interpret my results, but in thinking about it, I do seem to vary from being an accommodator to being competitive.”
—Publishing executive
“Lots of great ideas!”
—Bank manager
“Very interesting. I can see how asking the right questions up front can help dictate the appropriate outcome.”
—Training specialist
“I agree with the results.”
—Retail clerk
“It’s definitely me. I guess I am pretty competitive!”
—Salesperson
“I think it’s definitely accurate. We make a real effort to be collaborative in my group. But my style might be different outside of work.”
—Nurse
“I tied three ways, so my results are conflicting. But I think it’s accurate. I do use different styles in different situations.”
—Cook
“It’s true; I don’t accommodate.”
—Athlete
“It made me realize that I avoid until I have to deal with the conflict, and then I have to win. I need to change that pattern so I can be more collaborative with my employees.”
—Executive
“I didn’t realize I was such a wuss! I need to stick up for myself more.”
—Restaurant employee
“I found this survey interesting and helpful. I plan to give it to our managers and supervisors also.”
—Manufacturing vice president
As these varied user responses indicate, the instrument typically generates a positive
response and sometimes leads to significant insights. No complaints or negative comments were received in the several pilot tests used to evaluate the instrument, which is an indication that the instrument is relatively easy to complete and is seen as providing sufficiently useful results to justify the effort required to complete it.
Administering the Instrument
Some instructors administer the instrument now without explanation, while others prefer to introduce the topic of conflict (Module 1 in Part II) and then administer the instrument. This guide supports both approaches and allows you to make a choice. Each one seems to work well, but my preference is to delay use of the instrument until after I’ve done the first training module because it gives participants more context with which to interpret their scores. You will then be able to explore the implications of different styles and profiles with the group and be more confident that they understand the styles and the grid that portrays them in relation to each party’s interests.
If you follow the training sequence laid out in Part II, you will find detailed instructions for administering the instrument in Module 2 and you can follow them when you come to them.
But if you wish to administer the instrument up front or use it as a stand-alone exercise or as part of another course design, the following general instructions should prove helpful as you administer it.
To administer the instrument as a stand-alone activity independent of the flow of training activities and learning points in Part II of this guide:
1. Distribute a copy of the Dealing with Conflict Instrument and the accompanying booklet to each participant. Instruct the participants not to separate the NCR sheets of the instrument at this time.
2. Tell participants: The purpose of the Dealing with Conflict Instrument is to give you a
better understanding of your own conflict behavior. The instrument contains 15 pairs of statements. Read each statement carefully and choose the answer that best fits you. Even if you agree with both the A and the B statements, you must choose one over the other.
3. Allow 15 to 20 minutes for participants to complete the instrument. When they are finished, instruct them to separate the two NCR sheets.
4. Tell the participants to transfer their checkmarks to the boxes on the right, and then add up the number of checkmarks in each column. The total should be 15.
5. Allow 5 minutes for participants to total their scores. When they are finished, have them read pages 5–8 of the DWCI booklet. Tell participants that you are about to review each of the five conflict-handling styles. Ask if they have any questions before proceeding.
6. When all questions have been answered, have participants turn to page 5 of the booklet. Show Transparency T1, Five Conflict-Handling Styles, and tell the participants that this figure represents the five conflict-handling styles.
|[pic] |
7. Use Transparencies T2 through T6 and review each conflict-handling style. Tell the participants that each of these styles is described on pages 5 through 8 in their booklet, along with tips on using each style. After presenting each style, ask participants if they have any questions before proceeding to the next style.
8. Use the information provided below to prepare your review of each conflict-handling style:
|Accommodate (I Lose, You Win) |
|When you accommodate, you put aside your needs and desires and acquiesce to the other person’s requests or demands. This style is |
|appropriate when you place a high value on your relationship with the other party. It is also appropriate when the outcome of the |
|conflict is of low importance to you, but is of high importance to the other party. |
|Tips: Don’t be too quick to use the Accommodating style. Refrain from using statements such as “It doesn’t matter to me” or |
|“Whatever you say.” In order for both parties to feel good about the outcome, you should feel that you made a proactive decision to |
|allow the other person’s needs to be met. The other party should recognize that you have given up something of value in order to |
|resolve the conflict. This will allow you to be viewed as cooperative, rather than weak. You will also have paved the way for a |
|future request—that the other party be as responsive to your needs in another situation. |
|Avoid (I Lose, You Lose) |
|When you avoid conflict, you side-step or withdraw from the conflict situation. When you prevent or postpone the conflict, the |
|conflict remains unresolved and neither party wins. By ignoring or postponing the conflict, you prevent either yourself or the other|
|party from resolving the conflict. Sometimes conflicts resolve themselves when they are ignored. For instance, people who are angry |
|might try to initiate arguments with you over silly things that they will not care about later on when they are in control of their |
|tempers. It is also wise to avoid any conflicts in which you think the other party is dangerous, either because he or she might |
|escalate it to a destructive level or because he or she is simply too powerful for you to negotiate with on a level playing field. |
|Tips: Avoidance is often the best initial response to conflicts when you are unprepared for them. Use it as a short-term strategy |
|for buying time and figuring out how to handle the conflict. For example, ask to schedule a meeting to discuss the situation, and |
|pick a time as far in the future as the other party will agree to. You will then have enough time to consider your approach to |
|resolving the situation, or have an improved position by then. If the other person has a deadline, your avoidance puts you in a |
|better position over time. He or she is more likely to be reasonable and willing to collaborate or compromise when the deadline is |
|at hand. |
|Compromise (We Both Win, We Both Lose) |
|In the Compromise style, you resolve the conflict quickly and efficiently by seeking a fair and equitable split between your |
|respective positions. When you compromise, each side concedes some of their issues in order to win others. The key to effective |
|compromise is that both parties are flexible and willing to settle for a satisfactory resolution of their major issue. The |
|Compromise style is most appropriate when the outcome is of low-to-medium importance and the relationship is of high-to-medium |
|importance. Compromise is most useful when you look to bring a conflict to quick closure. |
|Tips: True compromise involves honesty and reasonableness. Stating an exaggerated opening position in order to retain as much |
|“bargaining room” as possible might be viewed as a challenge to the other party to do the same. This will cause both parties to be |
|suspicious of the real motivations of the other, and the resolution process will quickly change to a Competing style. The Compromise|
|style works best when there is a degree of trust between both parties and/or when the facts of the real needs of both parties are |
|mutually understood. |
|Compete (I Win, You Lose) |
|When you compete, you seek to win your position at the expense of the other party losing theirs. Competing is the appropriate style |
|when only one party can achieve their desired outcome. It is best used when the outcome is extremely important and the relationship |
|is of relatively low importance. Many different situations require that the Competing style be used to resolve the conflict |
|effectively. Situations in which there |
|can be only one “winner” or in which a quick decision is crucial are appropriate for the Competing style. For example, if two car |
|salespeople are competing for your business, compromising would not be an acceptable resolution; purchasing half a car from each of |
|them just isn’t possible. Similarly, it would not be appropriate (or ethical) for our favorite sports team to “accommodate” the |
|opposing team and allow them to win. Emergency situations that require split-second decision making can often be handled effectively|
|with this style. |
|Tips: By definition, the Competing style is not negative and has many appropriate uses. It can, however, have a detrimental effect |
|when it is overused—adopting a “winning at all costs” strategy regardless of the appropriateness of the situation. The Competing |
|style takes time and energy. It is, therefore, advisable that you “pick the right battles” and believe that the outcome justifies |
|the investment of your time and energy. |
|Collaborate (I Win, You Win) |
|When you collaborate, you cooperate with the other party to try to resolve a common problem to a mutually satisfying outcome. You |
|join with the other party to compete against the situation instead of each other. Each side must feel that the outcomes gained |
|through collaboration are more favorable than the outcome they might achieve on their own. Collaboration requires a trusting |
|relationship with the other party; it requires a situation in which creative problem solving will indeed benefit both parties, and |
|it requires a high level of communication and problem-solving skills. The Collaborate style requires the highest investment of time |
|and energy of any of the conflict-handling styles. It should be used when both the outcome and the relationship are of high |
|importance to both parties. It should not be used when a quick resolution is necessary because the process of true collaboration |
|usually takes time. Pressure to come to a decision will cause frustration to both parties and often force them to use a less |
|appropriate style. Collaboration is the most satisfying style because each party feels that they have achieved their desired |
|outcome, and the relationship is unaffected or improved. This style takes work, but it is worth the investment because it creates |
|long-term satisfaction and builds successful relationships. |
|Tips: In a genuine collaboration, each party starts by trading information instead of concessions. Each side must offer insight into|
|their situation—what their concerns and constraints are. The collaborative process requires that all parties keep an open mind, |
|temporarily set aside their own priorities, and consider many different approaches. |
Optional: Conflict Strategy Selector
An optional add-on is to use the Conflict Strategy Selector section of the DWCI and let participants use it to make a formal diagnosis of a specific conflict situation. (It can be a case you describe or hand out, or one that participants offer in discussion. Module 3 in Part II of this guide includes a series of cases based on the strategy selector, as well as a copy of the selector.)
The Conflict Strategy Selector guides participants to the best style, based on a series of questions about the importance of the relationship and the importance of the outcome. It takes about 10 minutes to complete. It is fully consistent with the DWCI for training purposes.
[pic]
Conflict Style Grid
[pic]
Part II
|DWCI |Modules for Teaching Conflict Management |
| | |
Module 1:
Exploring Conflict
Objectives
Use the following information to review the objectives of Module 1:
|1. Explain that negotiating behavior is generally the most appropriate response to conflict situations and that it is an alternative to |
|many ineffective, costly, or violent responses. |
|2. Demonstrate that there is a competitive win-lose aspect of negotiating and also a collaborative win-win aspect. |
|3. Teach a foundation vocabulary: conflict situation, satisfaction score, win-lose outcome, lose-lose outcome, win-win outcome. |
|4. Explore personal conflict experience (through the activity) in order to practice rating satisfaction and calculating the satisfaction |
|scores—and then either converting the scores to an average score or plotting them on a grid in order to find out whether a |
|win-win was achieved. |
|5. Use the participants’ experiences to demonstrate (a) that conflict situations are part of normal life and (b) that the outcomes of |
|conflict situations are often suboptimal, leaving considerable room for improvement. |
|6. Show participants how to interpret the Conflict Outcomes Matrix, which brings home the point that there is a benefit to improving the |
|outcomes of conflict situations by becoming a skilled and flexible negotiator. |
Use these objectives to structure your approach to the material in Module 1.
Teaching Strategies—Module 1
This module sets up some basic vocabulary and measures for use in later modules, so be
sure not to lose anyone. The Personal Conflict Experience activity and the Module Recap Exercise are both interactive and should be used to encourage engagement and active learning by all participants.
In addition, you might want to use some of the following instructional strategies:
• Use the section-specific Instructor’s Notes. This is where the bulk of the instructional strategies appear in this and future modules. Specific hints and supplemental content are provided in the notes to each section of this module. Many of these notes have to do with the learning process. For instance, you will find details of how to run the activity in the notes to that section: Be sure to review the notes when you plan your presentation of individual sections.
• Reinforce objectives-related learning by doing the participative Module Recap Exercise at the end of the module. This can be done individually using the Participant Coursebooks, or done in breakout groups of three to six people. If groups are used, instruct them to check with each member of the group to see if they agree with the answer to a question before anyone enters it in their coursebooks. This way, members are encouraged to think each question through, rather than go along with the group-think answer.
• As a warm-up to this module, you can ask a participant to describe a recent conflict experience. Probe for some details about how she handled it. Was she happy with the outcome? Was the other party happy? How did she decide what approach to take—or
did she just operate out of habit or instinct?
Instructor Notes for selected module sections and for the Personal Conflict Experience activity are provided on the following pages.
Instructor Preparation
Before you present Module 1, prepare a flipchart page or a section of whiteboard or blackboard with the following information:
|Participant |Participant’s Satisfaction |The Other Party’s Satisfaction |Average |
| |Score |Score |of the |
| | | |Two Scores |
| | | | |
You will use this chart in the scoring segment of the Personal Conflict Experience exercise.
Page 8 of the Participant Coursebook exhibits the following Conflict Outcomes Matrix. However, if you do not wish to use the page in your presentation and prefer to use a larger exhibit, you can either make a transparency from the master provided at the end of this section (T1-1) or create the matrix on a flipchart sheet or whiteboard/blackboard.
Conflict Outcomes Matrix
[pic]
|Section: The High Cost of Conflict |
Instructor’s Notes
Bridge the module’s introductory section and this one with a brief discussion that focuses on how effective people are at handling conflicts of interest. Refer participants to pages 1 and 2
in the Participant Coursebook during this presentation.
Use the following Discussion Notes for your presentation:
|Discussion Notes |
|Your conflict-handling skills are applicable to any conflict situation, which we will define as any situation in which people have |
|different interests and the ability to affect each other’s pursuit of those interests. Because such situations are not restricted to our |
|professional lives—they are commonly found in our personal lives as well—your skills are broadly applicable. |
|The conflict-handling skills you are learning here encompass many of the nonviolent ways of resolving conflict situations. The five styles |
|encompass all the effective ways of dealing with conflict—at least in theory. They are vital tools that we can use to deal productively |
|with conflict. |
|Keep in mind that a situation might fit the definition of a conflict situation, yet not actually lead to conflict. It is a situation’s |
|potential for conflict between the interests of two or more parties that identifies it as a conflict situation. If the parties—the people |
|or organizations involved—choose to pursue their interests, they must interact with each other to do so. How they interact—the nature of |
|their negotiations or the nature of their conflict behavior—determines how well the interests of each party are served. |
|The High Cost of Conflict |
|Negotiation using interpersonal skills is just one of the possible ways in which people respond to conflict. Responses to conflict range |
|widely, starting with avoidance and escalating beyond negotiation to less desirable and more costly, destructive approaches. |
| |The Range of Human Responses to Conflict Situations | |
| |• Avoidance • Fighting between individuals | |
| |• Negotiation • Fighting between groups | |
| |• Third-party mediation • Terrorist activity | |
| |• Legal action • War | |
| |• Robbery • Slavery | |
| |• Physical threat • Genocide | |
| |
|Section: The High Cost of Conflict (continued) |
|At the interpersonal skills level, a conflict can be handled fairly and nonviolently by the parties with conflicting interests. If |
|negotiations are attempted and they go well, there is no reason for any other conflict response. And yet we know that many conflicts |
|escalate to other, less desirable forms. In the United States, billions of dollars are spent each year fighting legal battles. More than 6 |
|million violent crimes are reported annually as well. Globally, there are an average of 39 major armed conflicts each year, another |
|indicator that conflicts often escalate to huge proportions. And because of the potential threat of terrorist action or warfare around the |
|world, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on the upkeep of a massive U.S. military force. |
|Organizational Costs of Conflict |
|Within a business or other organization, conflict comes with costs, often hidden. When conflicts are not recognized or are overlooked, the |
|underlying issues will not be resolved. |
|If one person in an organization is upset about a conflict with a co-worker and others do |
|not recognize that there is a problem, frustration, stress, and anxiety can build and lead to undesirable results. Workplace conflicts can |
|also lead to sleeplessness, which increases irritability. Stress and sleeplessness, common among employees today, often lead to destructive|
|behavior. Conflicts are often at the root of these symptoms. |
|Conflict frequently arises when organizations need to innovate and change. The conflict should be treated like a warning signal that there |
|are challenges and issues that need to be resolved. When conflicts are satisfactorily and effectively resolved, the result can be |
|beneficial to the organization as a whole. Creative solutions to problems help organizations move ahead and achieve their goals. Think of |
|conflicts as opportunities to help your organization overcome limitations to growth and change. But when conflicts are poorly resolved, |
|organizations do not grow and develop to their full potential. |
|These are just some of the costs of conflict—costs that are incurred because many people simply do not choose to deal with conflict in |
|productive ways. You might not be able to resolve conflicts better on a national or global level, but you can certainly learn to deal with |
|conflict productively and positively in your workplace and in your personal relationships. |
|Who Wins, Who Loses? |
|When conflicts are approached in a competitive manner, both (or all) parties to the conflict try to get what they want. But because their |
|desires are incompatible, they will not get all they want. For instance, perhaps two members of a work team disagree on who should write up|
| |
|a report about the team’s work. The report needs to include a written section and a detailed spreadsheet of a proposed budget. Neither of |
|the co-workers feels they have enough time to write up the report, and each believes the other person should be responsible for the |
|project. |
|To continue with this example, imagine that one of the two team members appeals to the team leader, who then assigns the report to the |
|other team member. This is a win-lose result. One of the people got what she wanted, the other did not. |
|Section: The High Cost of Conflict (continued) |
Initiate a discussion of this point by asking: Is this win-lose result good for the organization? Take a moment to think of the benefits and costs from the organization’s perspective. (Participant Coursebooks have the following table, which you can also draw on the board
or on a flipchart. Encourage them to fill it in pairs or breakout groups. Then debrief the groups and complete it yourself.)
(FYI: Outcome = Team leader forces a solution by assigning the report to one of the two people who were arguing over who should do it.)
|Organizational Benefits |Organizational Costs |
|of the Outcome |of the Outcome |
|Report gets written. |Team members are still upset and might continue to argue about work, |
| |instead of collaborate as a team. |
|Argument is stopped (at least for now). |Report might not be written well. |
| |The losing team member will be angry with the team leader and might |
| |resist his/her leadership later on. (Also, other team members might |
| |also resent the way the solution was forced and worry that this will |
| |happen to them.) |
| |Communications within the team might be reduced. When people sense |
| |that they are playing competitive or win-lose games at work, they |
| |tend not to share as much information. |
| |This conflict can resurface, since the person who lost might try to |
| |beat the other person in the “game” next time. Politics. |
As this exercise reveals, there are always some costs to a win-lose result, especially in cases where the parties to the conflict work within the same organization. Competitive approaches to conflict are very common throughout society—they are practiced in games and children’s play, and are modeled constantly in movies, stories, and the news. Yet whenever one side loses, that loss has repercussions that indirectly affect others.
Is It Possible for Everyone to Win?
In the example above, one team member was assigned the chore of writing up a report and preparing a budget, and the other got away with not having to do it. So one person lost the conflict and the other won. The relationship between the two team members will not be very good after this dispute, and the one who lost will probably feel resentful and not do as well on
|Section: The High Cost of Conflict (continued) |
the report as they are capable of. We can anticipate future conflict and continued difficulties as the team struggles to try to work together, instead of competing to avoid work. And future arguments are likely, too, since team members (busy with their own work) will continue to try to avoid undesirable team assignments such as report writing. The underlying causes of this conflict have not been addressed by the win-lose solution. (This is a good learning point and worth exploring in group discussion.)
Is it possible to come up with a better solution that makes all sides happy, in which there are fewer long-term costs to the organization for which they work? In a surprising number of cases, a win-win solution is possible, but it will require a non-competitive approach. To find a win-win outcome, the parties in conflict need to explore their underlying interests, apply their creative problem-solving skills, and try to generate new options and approaches.
For example, imagine that the team members discuss the report and discover that one of them is a slow writer and hates to have to do reports because of all the writing involved. The other is not good at preparing spreadsheets and hates doing reports because it takes so long to do the budget. Both have time pressures in their work, so neither wants to have to do things they find difficult.
With this new information, it is not hard to imagine how to produce a win-win solution. If the
two divide the work, each doing the part they do well, the report will get written far more quickly and easily than if either did it alone. And the benefits of this win-win solution extend beyond the specific conflict: The team’s report will probably be better if each part is prepared by the person who is best at it. And the solution can probably be applied to future reports as well, which means that the team will be more efficient and cooperative in the long run, too.
What If Nobody’s Happy?
The ideal of a win-win result that benefits the organization and makes everybody happy is certainly appealing. But sometimes the opposite occurs, and all the participants lose. Perhaps the members of a team argue about how to divide the workload and fail to get the work done
well and on time. Then the team gets a bad reputation. The members of the team suffer individually as well—perhaps not qualifying for bonuses or other rewards or receiving negative performance reviews that hurt their prospects for raises or advancement. The loss usually extends to the organization they work for, since the team’s failure to do its work well presumably has some broader impact on the organization.
We call these lose-lose outcomes because all the parties suffer negative consequences. They are commonplace whenever conflicts are avoided instead of resolved, but also when conflicts are resolved poorly. For instance, if the parties to a conflict get emotional and the conflict escalates, both sides might feel that the end results are destructive, and both are likely to carry emotional scars as a result of their dispute. Divorces usually end up as lose-lose situations, as do too many conflicts in the workplace and in personal relationships. In legal battles and court cases, both sides usually end up feeling unhappy in the end.
|Section: The High Cost of Conflict (concluded) |
Refer participants to page 4 in the coursebook and review the following terms that will be used throughout the workshop:
1. Conflict Situation: Any situation in which two or more parties have differing interests and an ability to affect each other’s pursuit of those interests.
2. Satisfaction: How people feel about the outcome of a conflict. (Satisfaction seems like an obvious concept, yet people rarely stop to evaluate the satisfaction of participants in a conflict or ask themselves how to achieve higher satisfaction levels.)
3. Lose-Lose: A conflict result that leaves everyone unhappy or dissatisfied. (A lose-lose outcome is inevitable when conflicts are not handled well or when they escalate and become destructive, but it is also common when conflicts that need to be resolved are instead avoided.)
4. Win-Lose: A conflict result that leaves one side happy at the expense of the other.
5. Win-Win: A conflict result that leaves both or all sides happy because the parties discovered a new and better approach to the conflict.
|Activity: Personal Conflict Experience |
Grouping the Participants
You have a choice of dividing participants into groups of three to six people or of leading the group as a whole. The activity can be run more quickly if you keep participants in a single, large group.
However, if you have more than 20 participants and enough time to conduct a breakout activity, then breakout teams are recommended.
Part 1. Individual Exercise (10 minutes)
1. Have participants turn to the Personal Conflict Experience beginning on page 5 of the coursebook. Review the directions for Part 1 of the exercise.
Note: You can modify the exercise directions in the Participant Coursebook by asking participants to think only of conflict situations that took place at work or only of conflict situations that occurred outside the workplace. Your choice should depend on what is
more appropriate for the group.
2. Allow 5 minutes for participants to write down who they had a conflict with and what the conflict was about.
3. Tell the participants to ignore the space for Ranking at this time.
4. When participants are finished, have them read over the list, and then rank the conflicts according to their importance. The most important situation should be ranked “1,” the next most important situation ranked “2,” and so on. There should be no ties. This ranking is useful because it will allow you to direct their attention to their most important conflict when you do Part 2.
Part 2. Satisfaction Rating/Scoring (10 to 20 minutes)
Have participants turn to Part 2, Satisfaction Rating/Scoring, on page 6 of the coursebook.
If conducting the activity with a large group:
1. Review the directions for Part 2 of this exercise.
2. Using the Rating Scale on page 6, have participants rate their satisfaction with the top-priority (highest ranking) conflict-situation outcome, and enter the rating in the space below the scale.
Note: If you think participants will have difficulty using the rating scale, guide them through the process the first time. Ask them:
“Were you very happy with the outcome of the conflict?
Moderately happy? In the middle? Unhappy? Very unhappy?”
|Activity: Personal Conflict Experience (continued) |
3. Next, ask them to determine their “self” scores. Tell them to record their ratings in the section Determining Your Satisfaction Score.
4. Call on participants to share their scores. If your group is very large, limit the number to a dozen or so individuals. Record the scores on a flipchart or whiteboard, using the following table format:
| |Participant’s |The Other Party’s Satisfaction |Average |
|Participant |Satisfaction Score |Score |of the |
| | | |Two Scores |
| | | | |
Depending on your time constraints, you can either probe for further information on their ratings, or keep the sharing brief and focused.
5. Repeat the process. Have them determine the other person’s Satisfaction score, and ask for their “other party” ratings. Be sure to record the scores in the second column of the table.
6. Explain how to calculate the average of the Satisfaction scores (add the scores and divide by 2). Ask participants to calculate their averages; then record them in the Average column of the table. If you prefer, you can calculate some (or all) of the averages with them, using the scores recorded on the flipchart.
Exploring Combinations of Satisfaction
If the conflict was a lose-lose, then your Satisfaction scores and their Satisfaction scores will be fairly low, and the average will be below 3. For example, if you were moderately unhappy with the conflict outcome (Satisfaction score = 2) and they were very unhappy (Satisfaction score = 1), then the total is 3 and the average is 3 ( 2 = 11/2.
If it was a clear win-lose outcome, then that means one party got a higher score at the expense of the other party’s lower score. An exact tradeoff would work out to an average score of 3 (scores of 5 and 1, 1 and 5, 4 and 2, 2 and 4, and 3 and 3 fall into this category).
|Activity: Personal Conflict Experience (continued) |
Win-win scores average more than 3 because for it to be a satisfying win-win, your score and their score have to average above the middle of the satisfaction scale. For example, if you were very happy and they were moderately happy, then your satisfaction scores would be 5 and 4, which average to 41/2.
If you plot the outcomes of a conflict situation on a graph, you will find that all the exact trade-off or win-lose options fall on a diagonal line running from a 5-and-1 combination of satisfaction ratings in one corner of the graph, all the way to a 1-and-5 combination in the other corner:
[pic]
7. End this part of the activity using the Conflict Outcomes Matrix. You can either have participants turn to the matrix on page 8 in the coursebook, draw the matrix on a flipchart page or whiteboard/blackboard, or display Transparency T1-1, Conflict Outcomes Matrix.
Use the matrix to plot participants’ “self” and “other” Satisfaction scores. If negotiations were optimal, then all the x’s should fall at the top right-hand corner of the matrix. However, the likelihood is that most will not fall that way.
|Activity: Personal Conflict Experience (continued) |
|If conducting the activity with breakout groups: |
|1. Each group should select one member to act as its record-keeper. Explain to the record-keepers that the exercise will involve ratings |
|and scoring results, and that they should record each group member’s results, including their own. Use a flipchart to illustrate this table|
|format: |
| | |Participant’s |The Other Party’s Satisfaction|Average | |
| |Participant |Satisfaction Score |Score |of the | |
| | | | |Two Scores | |
| | | | | | |
| If enough flipcharts are available, assign one flipchart to each group for record-keeping purposes. |
|2. Ask the group members to take turns sharing their top-priority conflict situations. Then instruct them to use the rating scale on page 6|
|in their coursebook and rate their satisfaction with the top-priority (highest ranking) conflict-situation outcome. Have them enter the |
|rating in the space below the scale. |
|3. Next, ask them to determine their “self” Satisfaction scores and record their ratings in the section Determining Your Satisfaction |
|Score. Have them share their results with the record-keeper. Be sure that the record-keeper records the results. |
|4. Repeat the process. Have them determine the other person’s Satisfaction score and ask for their “other party” ratings. Again, make sure |
|that ratings/scores are being recorded. |
|5. The Satisfaction scores should now be averaged. Explain how to calculate the average of the scores (add the scores and divide by 2). Ask|
|participants to calculate their averages; then record them in the Average column of the table. If you prefer, you can calculate some (or |
|all) of the averages with them, using the scores recorded on the flipchart. |
|Activity: Personal Conflict Experience (continued) |
| Exploring Combinations of Satisfaction |
|If the conflict was a lose-lose, then your Satisfaction scores and their Satisfaction scores will be fairly low, and the average will be |
|below 3. For example, you were is moderately unhappy with the conflict outcome (Satisfaction score = 2) and they were very unhappy |
|(Satisfaction score = 1), then the total is 3 and the average is 3 ( 2 = 11/2. |
|If it was a clear win-lose outcome, then that means one party got a higher score at the expense of the other party’s lower score. An exact |
|tradeoff would work out to an average score of 3 (scores of 5 and 1, 1 and 5, 4 and 2, 2 and 4, and 3 and 3 fall into this category). |
|Win-win scores average more than 3 because for it to be a satisfying win-win, your score and their score has to average above the middle of|
|the satisfaction scale. For example, if you were very happy and they were moderately happy, then your satisfaction scores would be 5 and 4,|
|which average to 41/2. |
|If you plot the outcomes of a conflict situation on a graph, you will find that all the exact trade-off or win-lose options fall on a |
|diagonal line running from a 5-and-1 combination of satisfaction ratings in one corner of the graph, all the way to a 1-and-5 combination |
|in the other corner: |
|[pic] |
|6. End this part of the activity by using the Conflict Outcomes Matrix. You can have participants turn to the matrix on page 8 in the |
|coursebook, draw the matrix on a flipchart page or whiteboard/blackboard, or display Transparency T1-1, Conflict Outcomes Matrix. |
|Activity: Personal Conflict Experience (concluded) |
|Use the matrix to plot participants’ “self” and “other” Satisfaction scores. If negotiations were optimal, then all the x’s should fall at |
|the top right-hand corner of the matrix. However, the likelihood is that most will not fall that way. |
|If each group has a flipchart, instruct the record-keepers to draw the matrix on the flipchart. Then tell groups that each member should |
|plot his or her scores on the flipchart. |
Part 3. Debriefing (5 minutes)
Part 3 on page 9 of the Participant Coursebook includes a helpful summary of this module. A number of learning points are presented in italics.
Summarize the key points of this activity, using the Discussion Notes below. Work through this text with the participants, illustrating the learning points as you go along.
|Discussion Notes |
|What can we learn from this activity? |
|There are a number of useful things we can learn from this activity. |
|First, note that it is not difficult for most people to generate a list of conflict situations from just the last couple of weeks. As the |
|group shared its experiences, you probably recalled many more conflict situations from your own experience. Because we often pursue our |
|interests in a social context, we find ourselves in many and varied conflict situations as a matter of routine. |
|Second, you might have noticed that your recollection of conflict situations was poor when you first began the activity, but it grew |
|rapidly once you got “in gear.” This is in part because we treat everyday conflicts in a routine manner, taking no special notice of them |
|at the time. |
|It takes a special effort to think back and recognize that they were indeed conflict situations. We tend to rely on ingrained habits or to |
|follow the lead of the other party in the majority of our conflict situations, rather than designing a strategy for ourselves. And that |
|means we are not necessarily making a conscious effort to optimize our outcomes—even in high-priority conflicts. |
|Third, the Satisfaction ratings probably spanned a considerable range because in |
|many cases, people are not fully satisfied with the outcomes of their top-priority conflicts. Satisfaction scores are generally well under |
|the maximum of 5; obviously, it isn’t easy to achieve a high level of satisfaction in conflict situations (which is why study and practice |
|are important). |
|These three findings all point to a need to explore our normal approaches to conflict situations and to develop a more flexible and |
|collaborative approach. |
|Module Recap Exercise |
This is an optional exercise. If you choose to use it, ask participants to fill in the blanks of the eight statements on page 10 of the coursebook. Then review the answers, using the answer key below. (Some learners like the high-structure nature of these questions, while others find them too reminiscent of the schoolroom, so make sure you respect your audience’s feelings.
If you don’t know how they feel, ask.)
If you used breakout groups in the Personal Conflict Experience activity, consider asking group members to work together on the statements. Then review the answers with all groups, using the answer key below.
|1. A conflict situation is any situation in which two or more parties have differing interests and the ability to affect |
|each other’s pursuit of those interests. |
|2. Within organizations, there is often conflict as a result of the need for change. |
|3. Your win-lose score is a measure of how well you competed in pursuit of your own interests . |
|4. A win-win score is a measure of how well both parties collaborated to find and pursue their interests . |
|5. A win-win score is defined as the average of both parties’ scores. |
|6. On the Conflict Outcomes Matrix, the Competitive Success Zone is reached when your satisfaction is high, and their |
|satisfaction is low. |
|7. On the Conflict Outcomes Matrix, the Joint Success Zone is only reached when both your satisfaction and their satisfaction |
|is high . |
|8. In everyday experience, parties to conflict situations (b) rarely achieve joint success because they do not approach conflicts |
|with sufficient skill and care. |
|(a) often (b) rarely |
Module 2
Understanding Your Style
Objectives
Use the following information to review the objectives of Module 2:
|1. Help participants understand their own behavior in conflict situations by guiding them through the self-assessment process, using the |
|Dealing with Conflict Instrument. About three-fourths of participants will find that they get the highest score for one of the five styles:|
|Accommodate, Avoid, Compromise, Compete, or Collaborate. Others might have a tie for their top score. (Consider whether it is appropriate |
|to ask them to share their scores with the group or not. People often view their scores as personal information they’d prefer not to |
|reveal.) |
|2. Draw out a discussion of the meaning of a dominant style or styles. Introduce the concept of defaulting to the conflict behavior you are|
|most comfortable with when under pressure. Explore the problems that arise from default behavior: Is it always the right style? Does it mix|
|well with the other person’s default style? |
|3. Point out that some people default to a pattern, not just a single style (which is one reason why there can be ties on the instrument). |
|For example, a common pattern is to accommodate or avoid for a period of time because you are not comfortable raising your concerns: When |
|you feel you’ve been pushed too far, you switch to the Compete style and make a firm demand. (This pattern can take others by surprise and |
|might not be productive, unless the person using it signals clearly that they are avoiding or accommodating, and will only continue to do |
|so for so long.) |
|4. Also make the point that people who are more flexible and aware of their style tend to have more evenly distributed scores because they |
|choose a style based on the situation. (That means our scores can change as a result of training and experience.) |
|5. Ask people whether they think others would describe their style the same way they did. Their scores can also be compared by using the |
|DWCI 360 instrument. Discuss the difficulties in projecting the behavior we intend to use, and also the ways that the norms of our |
|workplace or personal relationships can dictate how we behave in conflicts. (Is this a good thing, or does it limit our ability to manage |
|our own behavior?) |
Teaching Strategies—Module 2
This module is focused on administering and debriefing the instrument. When administering the instrument, hold a copy of the DWCI booklet up and show participants the removable two-part form in the front of it. Make it clear that they need to complete all the items on the top (white) sheet of this form. Instruct them to keep the green sheet attached beneath the white sheet so that their answers will drop through and be useful in the next step, scoring their results.
Point out the nature of the forced-choice items on the form: You must choose one over the other, even if the choice is difficult and the two statements seem to be about different things. Thousands of people have completed the DWCI successfully, so your participants need to know that they can and should complete every one of the items.
Although there is only one page of items, there are actually 30 separate statements to consider and weigh, so expect participants to take 10 minutes or more. (If some of your participants are reading English as a second or third language, give them more time and feel free to help interpret any items or words they find difficult. Note also that we continue to introduce new language versions every year, so consult the publisher or author if you think it might make sense in the future to administer the instrument in another language.)
Once the group is ready (having completed the first sheet), instruct participants to look at the green sheet and follow the directions for recording their answers on the second sheet. The instructions ask them to sort their scores into five columns and then total the checkmarks in each column. Most people find it quick and easy to complete the score form, but if someone seems to be having difficulty, go over to them and help them privately.
Debrief the group after they complete the instrument by asking them a series of guided discussion questions based on the numbered learning objectives on the previous page.
You can then go into a review of the five styles and their characteristics (check the DWCI booklet for descriptions of each style if you need to prep this content). Stop at each style to
ask for examples of when participants have seen this style used (or might best be used) in
the workplaces or in their personal lives. Here are some appropriate situations for each style:
• Avoid when someone is obviously tired, stressed, or angry (but if the issue is important, find a better time to deal with it).
• Accommodate when someone you care about has a stronger interest than you do in the outcome of the conflict (but let them know you are doing so, if you expect them to notice or reciprocate).
• Compromise by splitting the difference quickly when it is more important to move through the conflict efficiently than to seek an outright win or a true win-win solution.
• Compete when you will be fleeced if you don’t, such as when you are negotiating to buy an automobile from a pushy or manipulative salesperson.
• Collaborate whenever both parties have legitimate needs or interests at stake and you
care about the other party’s interests as well as your own. This is almost always the case
in conflicts with co-workers, customers, or business partners. In a project team, for example, conflicts and friction among team members needs to be surfaced and studied in order to find out what holds the team back and to discover ways of improving team performance.
What if they don’t understand the concept of collaborating to generate new, creative options that give both parties a winning outcome? This can be a difficult concept to understand, and many participants will not have seen this style in action very often. It can be easily illustrated by the classic story about the mother whose two daughters are arguing over the last orange in the kitchen. Each claims the right to it, and neither will give in. The mother imposes
a compromise by slicing it in half. Then one daughter juices her half and drinks the juice, while the other grates the rind of her half and uses it in a baking project. The story illustrates how easy it is to overlook hidden options that might have given the parties more of what they wanted.
A more sophisticated way to make the point is to ask participants to imagine that a couple is arguing over where to go on vacation. Each wants to spend their planned vacation week in a different location (you might choose Las Vegas and Bermuda, for example). Since neither wants to go where the other wishes to go, the obvious solutions are not very appealing. One person can give in, and no doubt would complain and nag the whole time! They could try to go to both places, but that would be a lot more expensive and difficult. They could go on separate vacations, but that increases costs (two hotel rooms instead of one, for example) and would mean that they won’t get to spend the time together. Or they could avoid discussing the point, out of fear that they won’t resolve the argument—but that might mean staying home and arguing about something else instead.
Far better, they could start by asking each other questions to find out what each is looking for
in a vacation. Try this: If you divide your group in half and ask each to present things that are appealing about one of the two destinations, you would generate two lists in a hurry. Then ask participants to try to think of other vacation options that might include much of what both people are looking for. (For instance, a cruise ship might provide the gambling and night life of Las Vegas, combined with the sun and water sports of Bermuda.) Participants find it quite easy to solve this problem and will tackle it enthusiastically. They might discover that this type of problem-solving is what collaboration is all about and mention that it’s not used very often in their workplace—which, of course, sets up a good learning objective for you and your participants.
360-Degree Assessment Option
A 360-degree version of the Dealing with Conflict Instrument is available from HRD Press or the author. It contains six copies of an “other” version of the assessment form itself, plus a fold-out cover that has a self-explanatory worksheet for plotting and combining the scores in order to provide a clear picture of how other people view the participant’s conflict style. This option is useful for people who are members of a team or work group, or when you are working with participants in a long-running conflict or negotiation. Get permission up front to include other assessments as well as self-assessments; then hand out the 360-degree version of the forms to those whose feedback you want to collect. Make sure they are clear on who they are describing when they use the form. Set aside 30 minutes in the schedule for participants to score and analyze those results at this point in the training program.
Additional Active Training Options
The Participant Coursebook contains a bar chart for creating a profile of one’s conflict style,
as well as several open-ended questions that can be used for whole-group discussion or
for breakout groups or individuals. (In the version below, I’ve added some notes to help
you structure or debrief the answers to the questions.)
|Recording Your Style Scores |
|You can create a graph of your style profile by transferring your scores from the green score form to this chart to create a visual display|
|that helps you interpret your findings. |
| |Style |Fill from left to right up to your number score: | |
| |Avoid |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 | |
| |Accommodate |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 | |
| |Compromise |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 | |
| |Compete |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 | |
| |Collaborate |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 | |
|Thinking About Your Scores |
|Do you think that other people will agree with this profile? What style do you think the people you work with will say you are using most |
|often? |
|• Often others’ perceptions differ from our own. The most common difference is that a small minority of people describe themselves as |
|“competitive,” yet people tend to view their co-workers and (especially) supervisors as competitive. Many participants will be perceived as|
|being more competitive than they naturally prefer to be. |
|If it is different from your results on the assessment, why do you think this is? |
|• It might be because you feel pressured to handle conflicts in a certain way by the norms of the organization or the people you interact |
|with. (Does the organization have an overall conflict style? What is it? Is it usually the best one, or should you try to select your own?)|
| |
|• It might be because you find it difficult to implement the style you prefer. There is a skill component that comes into play, regardless |
|of preference. |
|• It might also be because you find it hard to communicate your intentions clearly. People rarely talk about the conflict resolution |
|process or signal their behavioral intent in conflict. They get stuck focusing on the positions and outcomes, forgetting that talking |
|through process and style can set them up for better outcomes. |
|• Maybe people don’t really know each other that well in the workplace. If you don’t discuss personal style and preference or share |
|information about your own feelings in a conflict, how can people possibly know much about each other’s conflict styles? Yet if they don’t,|
|then clashes of style—and mistaken perceptions about style preferences—can themselves become a source of conflict. |
|How varied is your approach to conflict? Do you switch easily from style to style? |
|• It is hard to switch styles, and most people are uncomfortable in at least some of the conflict styles (many people are in fact |
|uncomfortable with all of the styles, since conflicts are emotionally stressful). |
|• People who practice conflict handling are better able to use the style and approach that works best in each situation. People become more|
|flexible with study and practice. |
|Do you sometimes use more than one style in sequence? Why? Can you think of a good example of when that is appropriate? |
|• Some people are equally strong in “Accommodate” or “Avoid” and “Compete.” They are conflict-averse and so tend not to stick up for their |
|interests at first. But if pushed repeatedly, they feel backed against the wall and will come out competing. They use a sequence of |
|low-assertive style(s) followed by higher assertiveness, and this sequence can confuse others. They need to be clearer up front about what |
|they are doing by saying what their interest is and then saying that they want to “Accommodate” or “Avoid” this time because they don’t |
|like to get into conflict. That way, the other party knows their situation and probably won’t keep pushing. Or if they do, they will not be|
|upset when the first party has to switch to a Compete style. |
|• A healthy style sequence is to use “Avoid” when the time is not right for productive conflict handling. You might ask someone who seems |
|upset or angry if it is okay to work on trying |
|to help them feel better first, and worry about the “hard” side of the conflict, the outcome, or the problem later. Seek permission to |
|Avoid and agree on a time, place, and process that is most likely to help them deal with their problem productively. |
|What happens when you are in conflict with someone whose style is very different from yours? Does this create stress or difficulty for you?|
|• People often struggle with differences in conflict style. One person might tend to be accommodating and expect the other person to |
|reciprocate. But the other person is a Compete style and will tend to be more assertive about interests and assume that the |
|first person will ask if they needed something. |
|• Another example: The Collaborate style digs deep into the underlying issues and problems, while the Avoid style tries to keep things |
|clean and is uncomfortable going into the conflict to that much depth. Each might find it uncomfortable or confusing to work with the other|
|because of these differing preferences. |
Trainers and facilitators: I think you will find that open discussions of these questions lead to a great deal of learning and processing of the concepts, and I recommend giving the participants at least 10 minutes to explore these questions.
Module 3
Which Style Should You Use?
Objectives
Use the following information to review the objectives of Module 3:
|1. In any conflict situation, participants need to start by considering which of the five |
|conflict styles they want to use. Would it be best to Accommodate, Avoid, Compromise, Compete, or Collaborate? Most people fail to plan |
|their style and end up using their default style or the style the other party selects instead of making a conscious choice. |
|2. You may be planning to emphasize collaboration in the course, but it is helpful |
|to present situations in which the other styles are useful as well. And since participants may have any one of these as a default style, it|
|is more inclusive to teach that there is no wrong style, and that the trick is simply to apply the best style for the situation. (But the |
|majority of situations in their workplace may require collaboration.) |
|3. Teach participants to ask the two basic questions in any conflict situation: “How important is the outcome of the conflict to me?” and |
|“How important is the other party’s outcome to me (do I care about their concerns and my lasting relationship with them)?” (Teaching Note: |
|These two questions can be shortened to two words for retention: |
|“1. Outcome? 2. Relationship?” Put them on the board this way when you teach them.) |
|4. Decide which style offers the most advantage in a conflict situation by assessing two factors: The importance of your relationship with |
|the other party, and the importance you place on the outcome of the conflict. (This means participants must get used to choosing styles |
|that are beyond the “comfort area” of their default style.) The way to decide is to realize that competition only takes care of your |
|outcome concerns, accommodation only addresses theirs (or if done well, the relationship), and collaboration addresses both. Avoiding |
|addresses neither (except that it may prevent you from damaging the relationship), and compromise addresses both—but only partially. |
|5. Have participants practice diagnosing conflict situations using the cases in the coursebook and the Conflict Strategy Selector |
|assessment instrument starting on page 11 of the Dealing with Conflict Instrument booklet in order to become skillful at selecting the |
|optimal strategy in any negotiating situation. |
Teaching Strategies—Module 3
This module is highly participative; it is a hands-on session to balance the more content-oriented session that precedes it. The core content is fairly simple and should be covered
in 15 minutes or less of instruction. The participants should be given plenty of time (an hour
or more if possible) to work through one or more of the cases in order to gain experience in diagnosing conflict situations.
This module’s activity can include role-playing based on the roles in the cases, which you should use if time and class size constraints permit. You can even try several repetitions of the same role-play, either by different participants or by the same participants after the instructor debriefs them. This allows participants to incorporate feedback into their performances and
get more learning out of the exercise. Be sure to budget at least 15 minutes for each “performance” of a role-play and subsequent discussion.
The core activity in this module is case-based, so you’ll need to prep the cases shortly before the training. There are short cases within the Participant Coursebooks, each with its own unique name to make it easier to get everyone “on the same page” and preparing the same case. (Breakout groups of two, three, four, or at most five are best for preparing and discussing cases.)
Use the following Discussion Notes for your presentation on which style to use:
|Discussion Notes |
|So far, you’ve learned something about your natural style tendencies, and you’ve explored the characteristics of each style. These |
|activities help you develop greater style flexibility. But before you can put that flexibility to profitable use, you need to know which |
|style is best in any particular situation. Accommodate, Avoid, and Compromise generally give results inferior to Compete and Collaborate. |
|Sometimes inferior results are acceptable (especially if it “costs” less to get them). But in general, you will want to use Compete and |
|Collaborate in your high-priority negotiations. The learning path is outlined on the following two overheads. |
|Discussion Notes (concluded) |
|Review the information on Transparencies T3-1 and T3-2. |
| |[pic] | |
| | | |
| |[pic] | |
| | | |
|Activity: Diagnosing Conflict Situations |
Now ask the participants to turn to page 16 in their coursebooks and read the first case, The Case of the Uncooperative Team Member. Have them read the case individually, then discuss it with their pairs or small breakout groups. Ask them specifically to think about what
A. most managers would probably do next in this case, and
B. what they think ought to be done (is it different from the answer to “a”?).
Role-play option: You can also ask the groups to assign people to the two roles in this case and stage a meeting or phone conversation in which they discuss their conflict. You can have them act this out in their breakout groups (if you think the people and the room make it likely this will succeed) or you can ask a volunteer team to act out the conversation for the entire room to observe.
Whether participants discuss the case or actually act it out, use it to draw their attention to the need to think about what style to use in the situation.
Here is the case:
|The Case of the Uncooperative Team Member |
|Copyright © 2000 by Alexander Hiam & Associates/ |
|Imagine you are leading a team that is responsible for completing a project and producing a report by the end of next month. One of the |
|team members has not drafted his part of the report, saying he is too busy with his other work and doesn’t have the time. In the last team |
|meeting, you gave him until today’s meeting to catch up. But he didn’t even come to the meeting. When you called him afterward, he |
|questioned your authority and said he had too many problems with his other work to worry about your report right now. Yet you know that the|
|report is important for the entire organization, not just his department, and you can’t imagine what work he might have that could take |
|precedence. |
|You are tempted to “pull rank” as the team leader and threaten him with a poor performance review unless he cooperates. Even though he’s in|
|another department, you know a bad review from his team leader could cause him problems later on. What will you as the team leader do next?|
Debriefing the Case of the Uncooperative Team Member
This case represents an increasingly common problem in workplaces, where people often
work on projects and teams in collaboration and may not report directly to the person in charge of the collaborative effort. In real-life situations like this, most people will tend to escalate in a competitive style, for example, by trying to pull rank and issue ultimatums or by going over the uncooperative team member’s head. Or they may make a direct appeal, attempting to persuade the person to be more helpful by explaining why the work of the team is important. Such approaches are essentially competitive because they focus on trying to get the team member to do the work even though he seems to have reasons not to do it.
|Activity: Diagnosing Conflict Situations (continued) |
In a training context, people are more likely to advocate a collaborative approach because they sense that it is the “right thing to do.” (But can they implement it in the role-play? That’s harder!) You can lead the discussion to the point that most people would tend to take a competitive approach, trying to control the team member’s performance in some way, at least in real life. Then you can observe that this does not attend to whatever concerns or problems the team member may have and ask the group to think whether those might be important.
Next, you can ask the participants to open their Dealing with Conflict Instrument booklets to
page 11 and to use the style selector statements to re-analyze this case. When they complete this quick assessment, they generally find that they have rated both outcome and relationship issues as important. They can then plot these in their booklets on the style selector graph. The formal answer produced by this pen-and-paper exercise is almost always that a collaborative approach is necessary:
[pic]
Finally, make the point that, while nobody is going to use the style selector statements routinely in their work, everyone can and should develop the habit of asking themselves to consider both outcome and relationship issues before choosing their style.
|Activity: Diagnosing Conflict Situations (continued) |
Summarize the case by observing that,
1. Anger and frustration push most people toward an assertive Compete style in this conflict. But is that the best thing?
2. Using the Conflict Strategy Selector, most people realize that both outcome and relationship are important in this case. That means a Collaborate style is preferable.
3. To initiate a collaboration in this case, you’ll need to learn more about the team member’s situation and find out what problems or pressures are getting in the way of his contributing fully to the team. Perhaps you will need to talk to his department head on his behalf to make sure he has enough time to do the team project as well as his regular work.
Discussion Option: Ask participants for possibilities and brainstorm a long list of all the possible things that might have led the team member to fail to do the work. Note that some have to do with the team member himself and might be viewed as his fault, but many are external factors having to do with other work projects, how the team member is rewarded for work, what the team member’s boss does, whether the team member has the information or knowledge needed for the assignment, and so forth. A collaboration might focus on such factors to remove barriers to good performance.
Participants have the following form in their coursebooks to use in this activity:
Possible reasons for the uncooperative behavior:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Activity: Diagnosing Conflict Situations (continued) |
|Part 2: Individual or Group Exercise (15 minutes) |
|You can now teach participants to use the formal style selector, which asks a sequence of questions to ascertain how important outcome and |
|relationship concerns are in this case. It is interesting to reanalyze the same case, this time using the formal analytical tool in the |
|DWCI booklets. It gives you an opportunity to encourage participants to rethink initial reactions and recognize that first reactions can |
|always be improved. But point out to them that you don’t expect them to use the paper-and-pen method. It is just helpful in internalizing |
|the decision-making step so that they will remember in the future to select their style before acting. Here is what the participants have |
|in their coursebooks for this part of the exercise: |
|Directions: Turn to page 11 in your booklet, where you will find a style selector tool. Apply it |
|to the case you just read and discussed. Take another look at The Case of the Uncooperative Team Member to refresh your memory of the key |
|facts as presented in the write-up. Now circle the best option of the two presented for each of the style selection questions in your DWCI |
|booklet. Follow the instructions there to add up the number of O and R answers |
|you gave and plot them on the style graph. Draw lines out and up from your two scores |
|on the graph and mark the point where the two lines intersect. This point will fall into a box representing one of the five styles, which |
|means the tool in the booklet says that is the best style to use in the case. |
|Group discussion points: Compare your results with others in your group. Did they get |
|similar results? If not, why not? Compare your answers and see why you interpreted the case differently. Can you come to agreement easily |
|or do you have significant differences of opinion? |
|— Do your differences of opinion reflect differences in your own style preferences? |
|— Do your differences of opinion reflect differences in your past experiences on teams and the degree of cooperation and trust that |
|existed? |
Key Learning Points:
1. This activity is designed to encourage you to stop and think about the choice of styles before acting. Too often we react in a conflict first, without thinking about what style makes the most sense.
2. This activity also introduces a formal method for evaluating a conflict, in which you rate the importance of outcome and relationship concerns. This approach can be done rigorously using the questions in the Style Selector exercise. It can also be done informally, in your head, once you get used to the method.
More cases?
If you have time, you can now move the participants on to one or more additional cases,
giving them the opportunity to refine their analysis and (if practical) to role-play more conflict situations. (Emphasize the need to switch from telling to asking when they try to role-play a Collaborate style. More questions are better since they need to explore underlying needs and causes.) The following pages include copies of these cases as they appear in the coursebook. They are also listed by title here to help you see what the recommended solutions are in case you want to choose ones representing specific styles:
The Case of the Uncooperative Team Member (Collaborate style recommended)
The Case of the Unhelpful Associate (Compete recommended)
The Case of the Competitive Salesperson (Collaborate recommended)
The Case of the Irate Customer (Avoid recommended)
|Activity: Diagnosing Conflict Situations (continued) |
|The Case of the Unhelpful Associate |
|Copyright © 2000 by Alexander Hiam & Associates/ |
|One of your associates has told you that she is about to retire. You have had a good working relationship with her for the last few years, |
|but you often find yourself waiting for her to complete her work before you can do your own. She is responsible for preparing field |
|reports, which you need to use in order to do your job. In the past, you have often helped her or talked other people into helping her in |
|order to get the reports you need on time. Since she has decided to retire, however, she has been working even more slowly and tends to |
|leave early. As a result, her work is falling even further behind and so is yours. |
|You figure that you will probably need to offer to help her again, but you are awfully busy yourself and wish you didn’t have to take on |
|this extra burden. What approach should you take? |
Debriefing the Case of the Unhelpful Associate
1. You have given in and done your associate’s work in the past, which means that you used the Accommodate style. But is that the best thing?
2. When you use the Conflict Strategy Selector, you will probably realize that outcome is more important than relationship now, since your associate is about to retire and you
won’t have a working relationship in the future. What matters here is the outcome—getting her to do the work. If you view relationship as low in importance, then the Compete style
is probably most appropriate. (Alternatively, if you decide the relationship is of medium importance, then Collaborate might be best, but certainly not Accommodate.)
3. You need to be assertive with your associate. Look for some leverage you can use to create consequences (both good and bad) for the work you need her to do. The consequences you select will depend upon the situation and your knowledge of her motives and desires, but it is important that you make her aware of the consequences. You need
to make it clear that you are changing styles and will no longer accommodate her.
|Activity: Diagnosing Conflict Situations (continued) |
[pic]
|The Case of the Competitive Salesperson |
|Copyright © 2001 by Alexander Hiam & Associates/ |
|It was a tough meeting. You started out by trying to build a good relationship: Asked friendly questions, expressed an interest in his work|
|and hobbies, did your best to make him feel comfortable. But he didn’t seem to pick up on your overtures, and as soon as the conversation |
|got around to the terms, he slammed you hard: Let you know that he was not willing to deal, accused you of wasting his time and of not |
|being serious, raised his voice and banged his fist on the table for emphasis. |
|At first you were taken off guard, and you found yourself giving in on terms. You made several concessions that, in hindsight, seem like |
|they were too big. And he didn’t make any significant concessions to match. Now you are preparing for another round, and you realize that |
|you are already at the wrong end of your planned ranges, and you still don’t have a deal. He is demanding a higher price than you are |
|prepared to pay. In addition, he is refusing to consider your need for quality and delivery guarantees. |
|It’s too bad your firm views the product in question as such an important one. And it’s too |
|bad this salesperson is so tough, because you’d like to build a better working relationship with the company he represents. However, at |
|this point you feel your back is against the wall. You are considering either walking away and avoiding the whole mess, or else getting |
|tough and making a final offer that rolls back some of your earlier concessions. If he doesn’t like it, tough luck! |
|What styles are you considering, and what style is indicated based on relationship and outcome considerations? |
Debriefing the Case of the Competitive Salesperson
In this case, you have a clearly stated interest in building a good working relationship with the company the salesperson represents. You also care about the terms of the sale you are negotiating, so relationship and outcome both matter—another case for the Collaborate style.
But the salesperson clearly uses a Compete style. Can you manage to turn the situation around and get him to come to your side of the table? Maybe not, but you’ll never know unless you try! You could start up the session by explaining your interest in building a good long-term working relationship and explaining that your firm has to have a good price and certain guarantees of quality and service in order for that to be so. Then you can shift gears and ask him about his firm and his interests, trying to understand why he is being so competitive. Is there not enough of a margin? Is he under pressure from a manager? Or is this just his habitual style? In many cases, that’s all there is to it, so it will only take a bit of work on your part to break through the habits and establish better communication.
|Activity: Diagnosing Conflict Situations (concluded) |
|The Case of the Irate Customer |
|Copyright © 2001 by Alexander Hiam & Associates/ |
|You have just come on duty as night shift supervisor for a big hotel. While you are checking the e-mails, you hear a commotion and run out |
|to the front desk to see what’s happening. A customer is shouting insults and waving her arms, obviously very angry with one of your desk |
|clerks. You come over, introduce yourself as the manager on duty, and ask if you can help. |
|“I used to come here all the time,” the angry customer shouts, “and I never had to pay this much for a room! Your rate is $200 more than |
|the last time I was here. What sort of scam |
|are you running, anyway?” |
|After a while you manage to get out of the customer the information that it has been several years since her last visit, if indeed she ever|
|came at all. You suspect that she might have gotten your hotel confused with a smaller and much cheaper one nearby that has a similar name.|
|You also learn that she does not have a reservation; she simply barged in and demanded a corner suite at “my special discount price, the |
|one I always get when I come here.” She even tried to bribe the clerk by slipping him a $10 bill. |
|The hotel is fully booked, so you cannot offer the woman a room tonight anyway, but you would like to resolve the incident happily and not |
|have her continue to shout and complain |
|in your lobby. What conflict-handling style should you use? |
Debriefing the Case of the Irate Customer
In this case, you are dealing with a difficult person who does not seem likely to become a good customer. Your judgment as a manager should probably be that you do not want to invest in building a relationship with her. This might be a hard decision to make: If customers are unhappy, it makes sense to try to accommodate them in order to rebuild the relationship and keep them from leaving angry and spreading their negative attitude to other customers and prospective customers. But in this case, you do not seem to be dealing with the kind of person your hotel wants as a guest.
As far as the outcome issues go, your hotel has no current business relationship with the woman and you don’t need to make a sale to her, since the hotel is fully booked. So your interests are really to avoid this conflict as much as possible. There is nothing to be gained
from entering into it.
But how can you extricate yourself from the conflict? You will need to try to usher this customer out of the lobby and on to another hotel with an available room (preferably one in her price range) as quickly and calmly as possible. Apologizing and acting sympathetic are always wise strategies when you are in the customer-service business, so use your most polite and helpful style as you duck this conflict and send her on her way. As soon as it is clear that you don’t want to argue and do not have a room available, she will most likely take the hint and move on in search of another victim. You can offer to get her a taxi and even suggest some hotels in the area with rooms in her desired price range.
Author’s note on cases: From time to time I develop additional cases for my work doing train-the-trainers on conflict management. And I’m happy to share these with DWCI users, so feel free to call or e-mail me to ask about availability. (I’ll update this guide when I have a new batch, but I don’t mind e-mailing or faxing them to you in the interim.) I can be reached at
413-549-6100 or alex@.
Module 4
How to Raise Conflict IQ
This section provides the trainer, facilitator, or consultant with supplemental learning material and activities aimed at helping people improve their “conflict IQ.”
Instructor Preparation
Use the transparency master provided at the end of this module to make transparencies.
Make one copy of Handouts HO 4-1 and HO 4-2, provided at the end of this module, for each participant.
Objective: Improving Your Conflict-Handling Capabilities
Use the following information to review the objectives of Module 4:
|Conflict IQ is the term we use to describe “intelligence” in the handling of conflicts, and |
|it is the most important objective of the training applications of the Dealing with Conflict Instrument. The instrument and the supporting |
|content will help you increase your Conflict |
|IQ by: |
|1. Increasing self-awareness of conflict behavior. |
|2. Increasing awareness of alternatives and options. |
|3. Teaching a planned approach for selecting the best style in each conflict situation. |
|4. Providing reference material to help in using each style more effectively. |
|5. Teaching a planned approach for understanding and managing the other party’s style. |
|6. Encouraging and supporting efforts to shift to more collaborative and creative conflict-handling styles. |
|7. Teaching troubleshooting techniques and processes for creating more collaboration. |
If you wish, you can introduce the concept of Conflict IQ specifically as a learning objective, as discussed on the following page. Have participants turn to page 24 in the coursebook and follow along. Use Transparency T4-1 to illustrate the concept.
|[pic] |
Option: If you wish to give a more detailed presentation, portray Conflict IQ as determined by the level to which someone applies creativity, communication skills, emotional detachment, extroversion, peace-making skills, independence, planning, and knowledge to conflicts. Transparencies T4-2 through T4-9 individually present each element of Conflict IQ, first with a single-sentence descriptor, then with a more detailed list of three subdescriptors. You may present them at either the “top level” of definition or at the more detailed level, depending on how much time you wish to give this content. Remind participants that these elements are also presented on page 24 of the coursebook for future reference.
Note that each of these elements of Conflict IQ can be used as a learning point if you wish
to present the construct to your participants. Each is incorporated in the Conflict IQ Form (Handout 4-1) for use in self-assessments or other assessment activities.
A. Creativity:
I take a creative approach to conflicts. (I come up with lots of alternatives before making
any decision. I also look for innovative solutions to problems, and I probe to find out what the underlying issues and constraints are so that I can work with them.)
B. Communication Skills:
I am good at communicating with other people during a conflict. (I am skilled at drawing people out to find out what’s really bothering them. I also know what to do and say in tense social situations, and I am a very good listener.)
C. Emotional Detachment:
I am able to keep a clear head when others are excited, angry, or upset. (My emotions don’t get the better of me in conflicts. I don’t lose my temper when dealing with others, and I am a very active thinker, especially when I’m involved in problems or conflicts.)
D. Extroversion:
I am comfortable and confident when I interact with other people. (I enjoy interacting with others. I am not afraid to express myself in front of others, and I take a genuine interest in other people’s situations.)
E. Peace-making Skills:
I am good at reducing the level of conflict between people. (I reach out to defuse anger by apologizing and showing concern. I am also good at cooling people off when they get angry, and I often recognize the other person’s position and explain my position to them.)
F. Independence:
I am assertive and self-assured in conflict situations. (I take a leadership role. I am not persuaded by others’ ideas unless they really make sense, and I don’t worry too much about what others think of me.)
G. Planning:
I focus on objectives and how to achieve them, rather than get caught up in short-term aspects of conflicts. (I think and talk about the ultimate objectives of each party. I take the time to approach conflicts thoughtfully, and I also spend time planning my approach.)
H. Knowledge:
I am knowledgeable about conflict-handling styles and methods. (I am aware of my own style tendencies, and I study the other party’s style and approach. I also analyze the situation to identify the optimal style and approach.)
|Activity: Measuring Your Conflict IQ |
If you wish, you can run a 10-minute activity in which participants assess their own Conflict IQ using the Conflict IQ Form(Self, Handout 4-1.
The point of this activity is to help participants identify the (probably many) areas in which they can improve their conflict-handling behavior by applying more skills and capabilities. All of the items measured in the Conflict IQ Form are learnable and varied, depending upon intent. This means that participants can readily raise their Conflict IQ simply by making an effort to apply these capabilities in conflict situations.
The key learning point is that your Conflict IQ is as high as you choose to make it!
If you choose to run this activity . . .
1. Distribute a copy of Handout 4-1 to each participant (including the Scoring Sheet) and review the directions.
2. Allow 15 minutes for participants to complete the form. When they are finished, explain the scoring procedure and allow a few more minutes for participants to score the form.
3. Explain that any score under 20 indicates a conflict competency that needs to be improved.
4. Discuss the results in a debriefing session in which the observers offer suggestions for how overall Conflict IQ can be improved.
|Activities: Conflict IQ and Role-Play Activities |
An interesting option for the Conflict IQ Form—Other (Handout 4-2) is to combine it with any of the many available conflict role-play activities.
A helpful learning point from this activity: Conflicts are only as smart as the average of the participants’ Conflict IQs. That means “dumb” conflict behavior on one person’s part can
bring down the combined IQ and lead to a less-intelligent solution.
Another tie-in learning point that can come out of this activity: Conflict IQ involves a lot
of emotional and interpersonal IQ elements, not just rational/logical IQ. The “emotional intelligence” element of conflict behavior is very visible when participants engage in or
observe role-plays.
If you choose to run this activity . . .
1. Have two people prepare for and act out the roles in a conflict or negotiation case.
2. Distribute Handout 4-2 and allow 15 minutes for participants to complete the form. When they are finished, explain the scoring procedure and allow a few more minutes for participants to score the form.
3. Explain that any score under 20 indicates a conflict competency that needs to be improved.
4. Discuss the results in a debriefing session in which the observers offer suggestions for how overall Conflict IQ can be improved.
The Components of Conflict I.Q.
[pic]
Module 5
Advanced Techniques for
Competition and Collaboration
Objectives
Use the following information to review the objectives of Module 5:
|1. Identify the interpersonal and thinking skills that are helpful to the advanced negotiator |
|in collaborative and competitive settings. (The key skills for the advanced negotiator are trust-building, listening, anger management, and|
|creativity.) |
|2. Review the choice of styles and learn that the wrong choices are commonly made |
|due to a lack of knowledge and skills. In the workplace, poor choice of style leads to |
|a “negotiation gap” that costs the organization money in lost opportunities and wasted time. |
Suggested Instructional Strategies
These strategies will help you deliver this module clearly and effectively.
Instructor’s Notes for selected module sections and the Assessing Trustworthiness activity are provided on the following pages.
Use the Discussion Notes on the following pages if you choose to give a presentation on the Advanced Techniques for Competition and Collaboration.
|Discussion Notes |
|Remind participants of the many organizational costs of win-lose or lose-lose outcomes, and revisit discussions and insights about the |
|value of collaboration. Then suggest that the ideal “mix” of conflict styles in a healthy organization should be roughly as follows: |
|• At least 75% Collaborate |
|• 25% Compete, Compromise, Accommodate, and Avoid |
|A mix such as this one means that the employees of the company usually collaborate to find creative, productive solutions to their |
|conflicts. It means that they sometimes compete hard when competition is necessary, or they take the easy way out by using a Compromise, |
|Accommodate, or Avoid style when the conflict is not very important. To achieve this mix in most organizations, however, employees need to |
|greatly improve their collaboration skills. |
|Gaining Skills for Collaboration |
|To improve your own ability to use the Collaborate style and to improve collaboration throughout your organization, practice these four |
|helpful and general conflict-handling skills: |
|1. Trust-Building |
|2. Listening |
|3. Anger Management |
|4. Creativity |
Write the list of skills on the flipchart as you state each one.
1. Trust-Building
2. Listening
3. Anger Management
4. Creativity
It’s fairly easy for participants to see why trust is important in conflicts, especially in collaborative ones in which you share your concerns and information with each other. Listening skills are similarly important because they help you “see beneath the surface” of the conflict. Anger management is essential because emotions can get in the way of good conflict-handling, and they keep us from using our skills and insight effectively. Finally, creativity is essential in order to find good solutions. Win-win outcomes require some creative problem-solving. If the win-win solution were obvious, you wouldn’t have a conflict in the first place, so participants have to recognize that creative problem-solving is a key aspect of good conflict-handling. This is perhaps the rarest skill in conflicts, so it is good to emphasize its importance and try to leave enough time to do some practice work on it.
Tell the participants that these skills will be covered in the activities to follow.
Skill 1: Trust-Building
The Importance of Trust to Skilled Competition and Collaboration
Ask the participants:
|[pic] |Why is trust so essential and how can it be built, even when you are competing hard? |
Write the participant responses on the flipchart.
Use the following Discussion Notes to reinforce the participants’ answers:
|Discussion Notes |
|Trust is essential to dealing with conflict when using a Collaborate style. You must have a certain level of trust if collaboration is to |
|flourish in an organization. |
|However, there are probably some people within the organization whom you do not trust enough to share all your objectives and concerns |
|with. |
|Why can’t we trust everyone? The reason lies in past conflict situations. If at any time in the past someone has appeared untrustworthy in |
|conflict situations, then he or she is suspect in the future. As a result, you might feel that opening up for a collaboration would put you|
|at risk—the person might take advantage of the situation to rob or con you. You might not even want to compete with this person—what if he |
|or she appears to use the Compete style, when actually he or she is trying to con you? |
Ask the participants:
|[pic] |What is “trustworthiness” in conflicts? |
Reinforce participants’ responses using Transparency T5-1, Trust-Building. Describe the two types of trust necessary for successful negotiating.
|[pic] |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|In rule-keeping trust, you know what rules the person is following and you can trust that person to stick to these rules. Rule-keeping |
|trust is the minimum level of trust needed for effective competitive or collaborative negotiations (and it is also essential to |
|compromises). |
|In caregiving trust, the other person needs to do more than just follow the rules—he or she needs to be on your side. Otherwise, true |
|teamwork is not possible. Collaborations require this additional level of trust. |
Show Transparency T5-2, Trust Matrix. Explain that this matrix illustrates the trustworthiness of the other party and the feasible styles of negotiation.
|[pic] |
Tell the participants they will now complete an activity that will help rate how they feel about the trustworthiness of business associates. Tell them that they will not name names. Assessing the trustworthiness of individuals with whom they are working will help them determine the type of negotiating style that will be most effective.
|Activity: Assessing Trustworthiness |
Instructor’s Notes:
Part 1: Trustworthiness Assessment
Ask participants to turn to the activity Assessing Trustworthiness on page 29 of the coursebook.
1. Review the directions with the participants.
2. Allow 10 minutes for participants to rate the trustworthiness of each individual.
3. When they are finished, help participants determine their average scores; then take the steps to calculate a “grand mean” average for the entire group.
4. Ask participants for their average Rule-Keeping scores and Caregiving scores. Record them in two columns on your flipchart.
5. Add up each column. Divide each sum by the number of participants. (If you wish, assign someone with a calculator to do this task.) This gives you an overall indicator of the trustworthiness level for each trust dimension.
6. If participants are from multiple organizations, treat the “grand mean” averages as general indicators of the trust levels in organizations. (They will probably be below 4 on both scales, and lowest on the Caregiving scale—which suggests a trust gap that needs to be filled.)
7. If participants are from a single organization, treat the “grand mean” averages as a benchmark for how far they need to go in increasing trust in their organization.
8. A corporate trainer from the Ohio Casualty Group pointed out that samples of three
are arbitrarily small. True! They are just big enough to shift the focus of this activity to
a nonpersonal level. But if you want a more thorough analysis of trust in the corporate culture, ask people to score five, six, or even all of their close associates. Then collect
their raw data and compute the “grand means” for both types of trust.
|Activity: Assessing Trustworthiness (concluded) |
Part 2: Interpreting Your Average Scores
When participants are finished with Part 1, ask them to turn to page 30 of the coursebook. Explain how to interpret participants’ scores:
• If the average score for Rule-Keeping Trust is below 4: Your workplace might be inappropriate for the Compete style. Use it only with individuals whose scores are higher than 4.
• If the average score for Caregiving is below 4: You might have serious difficulties using the Collaborate style of negotiation with your associates.
• If the average score for Rule-Keeping is 4 or above: You probably will not have serious trust problems in using the Compete style of negotiation in your workplace. Still, avoid using it with individuals with lower scores.
• If the average score for Caregiving is 4 or above: You probably will not have serious difficulties using the Collaborate style of negotiation in your workplace. Still, avoid using the Collaborate style with individuals whose scores are significantly below average.
Remember: Whenever you encounter an individual in a negotiating situation who scores low
on these scales, you must deal with the problem of trust before you can use the Compete or Collaborate styles effectively. Therefore, building trust will be one of your highest priorities.
(Note: You might want to have participants conduct a more extensive version of this activity
in which all close associates are rated in order to compute a fairer set of organizational averages.)
Building Trust for Competition and Collaboration
Show Transparency T5-3, Four Strategies for Building Trust.
|[pic] |
Use the Discussion Notes below to give a brief presentation on each of the four strategies for trust-building. Tell the participants that this information is also covered on pages 31 through 32 of the Participant Coursebook for later reference.
|Discussion Notes |
|The first step in building trust is to . . . |
|1. Let people know what is expected of them. Many people act in an unpredictable and untrustworthy manner because they don’t fully |
|understand what is expected of them. It helps to introduce a rule-finding step into the early stages of any negotiation. You can do this by|
|saying, “Before we go on, I want to clarify the rules. Let’s discuss what each of us expects the other to do—and not to do.” |
|This will encourage people to share their thoughts and learn something by listening |
|to your version of the rules. It will also break the ice for later discussions of what is acceptable and unacceptable in the negotiation |
|process. |
|2. Decide on the limits of your trust. Everyone can be trusted to some extent, but how far? It’s important to look at trust questions |
|analytically. One approach is to make a Trust Limits Analysis list for a specific individual. |
Write the following on the flipchart:
To use a Collaborate style of negotiating, you must trust the other person . . .
|TO . . . |NOT TO . . . |
|List the things you need to trust |List the things you need to trust |
|the other party to do. |the other party not to do. |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|Lists will differ, depending upon the negotiation situation, style of negotiation, and the specific offers or solutions that are under |
|consideration. |
|You might want to make more than one list—one for each possible course of action for |
|you and the other party. For example, you might have lists representing the options of |
|the Compromise, Collaborate, or Compete styles. |
|If you make only one list, look it over carefully, item by item. Ask yourself, “Can I reasonably assume that the other party will perform |
|all the things required and omit the things that might endanger my interests?” Base the extent of your trust on the answers to this |
|question. |
|If you made more than one list, look at all the lists and decide which are within the limits |
|of trust. Ask yourself, “Can I assume that the other party will perform all the things required and omit the things that might endanger my |
|interests?” If not, scrap the option and look for another that is within the limits of your trust. |
|Discussion Notes (concluded) |
|3. Lead the way. Trust leadership is an important part of style leadership. Modeling trustworthy behavior is an important step toward |
|getting others to be trustworthy. |
|Ask others to trust you with something, and then show them (and tell them) that you performed as they expected. Often, people act in an |
|untrustworthy manner because |
|they don’t trust you. |
|Ask others to be trustworthy, and give them the chance to behave in a trustworthy manner. Give people small opportunities to be trustworthy|
|and gradually work your |
|way to higher levels of trust. And be sure to give clear, quick feedback, either positive |
|or negative. However, remember that people do prefer positive to negative feedback. Make sure you thank people for being trustworthy. |
|4. Build trust gradually. Don’t expect people to change overnight. A lot of people are “shell-shocked” from past conflict situations or |
|relationships in which others disappointed or took advantage of them, so it might take them a while to build their trust in you. Also, |
|people learn to trust and be trustworthy from experiences where they see the benefits of trust. It’s a gradual process. You can’t move |
|someone from the low end to the high end of the trust scale overnight. But you can move them, and often farther and faster than you think. |
|If you follow these four strategies and make trust a goal, you should see a gradual increase in the trustworthiness of your associates and |
|supervisors in the workplace. You and your co-workers will be able to use collaboration and competition more effectively. |
|Section Recap Exercise |
Ask participants to take a moment to fill in the blanks of the six statements on page 33 of the coursebook. Then review the answers, using the answer key below. Answer questions and provide feedback, as required.
|1. There is a big conflict gap in most workplaces, because managers and employees lack negotiating skills, especially the skills |
|needed to use the Compete |
|and Collaborate styles. |
|2. The ideal mix of styles at a healthy workplace is at least 75% Collaborate , and no more than 25% Compete , Compromise , |
| Accommodate , and Avoid . |
|3. The two types of trust of importance to negotiators are role-keeping trust and caregiving trust. |
|4. To determine which styles are feasible, you need to assess the trustworthiness of |
| the other party . |
|5. The Collaborate style requires the highest levels of both kinds of trust. |
|6. You can build the level of trust for negotiations using four strategies. How many of them can you remember? (Order does not matter.) |
|1) Let people know what is expected of them. |
|2) Decide on the limits of your trust. |
|3) Lead the way. |
|4) Build your trust gradually. |
Skill 2: Listening
Listening Better to Improve Conflict Situations
Use the following Discussion Notes to present the segment on Listening. Tell the participants that this information is also covered on pages 34 through 35 of the Participant Coursebook for later reference.
|Discussion Notes |
|People generally take listening for granted. We assume that others hear and understand what we say—and that we hear them clearly as well. |
|However, people generally have only a partial understanding of others and often miss something important or make false assumptions during |
|negotiations. |
Show Transparency T5-4, Listening Errors in Conflicts and Negotiations.
|[pic] |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|You are probably familiar with at least one of these problems, if not all three. Let’s take a look at each problem. |
|1. Failure to hear clearly. Many times we think we understand what the other person |
|is saying, but in fact we’ve missed some part of the message and aren’t even aware |
|of it. We might even have physically heard everything, but misinterpreted the meaning. This can lead to false conclusions about what is |
|said, and major disagreements or dissatisfaction in a negotiation. |
|2. Failure to communicate clearly. Do people sometimes seem unable to hear what |
|you are saying? Their listening skills might be at fault, but so might your communication skills. One way to solve the listening problem in|
|negotiations is to communicate so clearly that it is easy to understand your meaning. |
|3. Failure to “hear between the lines.” In conflicts, people often conceal their true desires and hold back, or even misrepresent, vital |
|information. Even if they mean to tell you the truth, they might not have thought through their underlying interests and explored the |
|problem fully in their own minds. So you need to probe and explore, trying to read between the lines and learn more about their situation |
|as it relates to the conflict. Your listening goal must be to gain insight into the other party’s underlying needs, concerns, and motives. |
Show Transparency T5-5, Listening Strategies.
|[pic] |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|All three of the listening errors can be minimized by using these strategies. Let’s briefly review each one. |
|1. Passive listening. This is just what it sounds like—you play a passive role, focusing on listening to the other person. You let the |
|other person speak, encouraging him or her with a nod or question, but your main focus is listening. Most of us generally focus on what we |
|will say next and don’t exercise passive listening as much as we should. But by using passive listening, you will learn and observe more |
|about the other person than you normally do. |
|2. Active listening. Active listening uses “reality checks” to make sure you understood what was said by the other person. Each time the |
|other person makes an important point, stop and repeat what you heard, asking the speaker to verify your understanding. Usually, people |
|appreciate active listening, since they too want to make sure you get the message right. |
|3. Questioning. What if the other person doesn’t tell you everything you want to know? Then, despite how well you listen, you’ll have to |
|ask questions—sometimes lots of questions in order to probe for more information. However, be careful to inquire in a friendly, |
|nonthreatening manner. If people realize that you just want to understand the situation better, they will welcome your interest and become |
|cooperative. |
|Of course, people ask and answer questions more openly and honestly when collaborating than they do when competing. Competitive negotiators|
|often “spar” questions and answers, trying to outmaneuver each other. Either way, the more questions you ask, the more insight you gain |
|into the other party and the situation. |
|4. Looking for inconsistencies or underlying interests. The immediate or surface demands or positions always reflect underlying interests |
|that are broader and more flexible. (Example: I want to go to Bermuda because my underlying interests include relaxing, sitting in the sun,|
|and eating good food.) Your listening should be directed at surfacing those underlying interests. Interests are flexible and can be met |
|many ways. Get them out on the table and you can start generating creative alternatives. (And |
|draw their interests out with your listening skills, and soon they will see the value of |
|the approach and take an interest in your underlying interests as well!) |
Ask for a volunteer to share some information with you. As the volunteer speaks, model first passive listening, and then active listening.
Ask for another volunteer to share a desire or concern with you. It could be something they want to do but have not been able to, or it could be their side of a conflict at work or in the home. As the volunteer speaks, model questioning and looking for underlying interests. Show how there are always layers beneath the surface concerns, and show how your active listening skills can be used to help the volunteer articulate those underlying interests and understand them better.
Or . . . If you have trouble eliciting a real-life example from a volunteer, revert to one of the cases you handled or drew up and have them role-play in it. For example, the uncooperative team member role works well for this exercise.
And . . . If you think the participants will have difficulty role-playing and making up answers, let them do the questioning and you play the role yourself. Make up in your mind a scenario, for example, you have been assigned to another emergency team to work on a special project on deadline, and you are worried about your visibility on that project. You will have to work on this one instead of the one in the case. You might add another deeper layer by revealing that you are worried about layoffs, and feel that unless you seem indispensable right now, you could lose your job. Maybe you have a family to support and a spouse who recently lost his/her job. And so forth . . . let the participant peel an onion and reveal all sorts of underlying interests.
Show Transparency T5-6, Common Inconsistencies and Underlying Interests.
|[pic] |
Underlying Interests
— What are their core concerns?
— What motivates them to take their position in the negotiation?
— Can you “peel the onion” and reveal the underlying interests, then reframe the conflict by thinking of other ways to satisfy those interests?
|Section Recap Exercise |
Ask participants to take a moment to fill in the blanks of the six statements on page 36 of the coursebook. Then review the answers, using the answer key below. Answer questions and provide feedback, as required.
|1. Negotiations require a higher level of listening skills than any other form of communication. |
|2. The three main listening errors in negotiation are the failure to hear clearly, the failure to communicate clearly, and the |
|failure to read between the lines. |
|3. In passive listening , you let the other party talk while you concentrate on observing and listening to them. |
|4. In active listening , you repeat what you think you heard. |
|5. In questioning , you ask as many questions as possible in order to gain insight into the other party and the situation. |
|6. You need to probe for and explore underlying interests and then think about how to satisfy them in new and better ways. |
Skill 3: Anger Management
Use the following Discussion Notes to present the segment on Anger Management. Tell the participants that this information is also covered on pages 37 through 39 of the Participant Coursebook for later reference.
|Discussion Notes |
|You can’t negotiate well if you are angry. And you can’t get what you want out of the other person if the other person is angry. Anger |
|derails more negotiations than any other factor: it leads to poor outcomes and damaged relationships and often escalates the conflict to |
|other more damaging forms of conflict. |
Ask the participants:
|[pic] |How do you keep anger out of negotiations? What can you do to defuse anger if it is already there? |
Write the participants’ responses on the flipchart, and respond to their answers.
Tell the participants that you will now review two helpful strategies for managing anger.
Show Transparency T5-7, Anger-Management Strategies.
|[pic] |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|Let’s take a look at what is involved in using these two strategies. |
|1. Get the RED out. As shown on the overhead, RED stands for the rules, expectations, and demands that we often bring to a negotiation. |
|Some are obvious and appropriate, such as the right to expect that the other party will not resort to physical intimidation or violence. |
|But other REDs might be unreasonable. For example, a person might enter |
|a salary negotiation with the RED that he/she should get as big a raise as a friend did, even though the friend works at another company. |
|The boss, who does not share this perspective, might violate this RED without realizing it. People often “frame” a negotiation with REDs |
|that the other party does not know about or expect. That means that the other party is likely to violate these REDs, and people often get |
|angry when their REDs are violated. |
|How do you get the RED out? |
|• First, be aware of your own REDs before you begin negotiating. Try making a list of them. |
|• Then, ask yourself whether you should eliminate any because they are irrational and won’t help in the negotiation. |
|• Next, make sure that the remaining REDs are clear to the other party. |
|• Finally, analyze the other party’s REDs. Ask questions, and find out how the other party expects you to behave in the negotiation. |
|Activity: Get the RED Out |
This activity will help participants identify some of the rules, expectations, and demands
that they might bring to a negotiation, and how they can let go of those that can hinder
a collaborative negotiation style.
Write the following chart on the flipchart:
|Identify the |Which REDs can |
|REDs |be eliminated |
| | |
Ask participants to return one of the case studies on pages 16 and 20–22 of the coursebook and allow a few minutes for participants to review the case.
Tell the participants to think about what the REDs might be. Ask participants to volunteer their suggestions, and write them down on the left-hand side of the chart.
Next, ask participants which of the REDs can be eliminated, and write them down on the right-hand side of the chart.
For each RED eliminated, ask:
|[pic] |Why would you eliminate this RED? |
Respond to participant statements, pointing out what types of problems might be created if the RED were not eliminated.
Ask:
|[pic] |How would you make the remaining REDs clear to the other person? |
|[pic] |What questions would you ask the other person to determine his REDs? |
|Discussion Notes (continued) |
|2. Resolve anger outside of the negotiation. Your negotiation should always focus on the appropriate issues, and anger is not an |
|appropriate issue for a negotiation. When people get angry, their anger needs to be resolved, but this is a different process from |
|resolving a conflict of interest through negotiation. You can’t resolve anger through negotiation. You need to use different strategies. |
|Deal with the anger, then go back to negotiating. Or keep an anger-defusing strategy going on the side. But don’t mix the two goals—dealing|
|with anger and negotiating don’t mix. |
|How do you resolve anger? By reaching a point of catharsis. Catharsis is the emotional relief and balanced good humor you feel when you |
|“get over” your anger. To reach catharsis, you can either: |
|A. express the anger, or |
|B. allow yourself a cooling-off period. |
|These alternatives are referred to as cathartic behaviors. Burying the anger is not effective in the long term because the anger often |
|resurfaces, worse than before. When you release the anger, you get rid of it for good. |
|Now comes the complex part. Some cathartic behaviors are more productive than others. Venting behaviors are particularly a problem. |
|Expressions of anger such as shouting at others, cursing, and complaining to a friend might seem to be valid forms of emotional release, |
|but they tend to rehearse the anger, actually increasing it rather than releasing it. |
|Also, venting often provokes anger in others, which can set off a cycle of anger between |
|two parties. These cycles or catharsis traps do not get anyone anywhere, but they do tend |
|to increase tempers. |
|This does not mean that we should not vent our anger. Venting can be helpful to a degree, and for many people it’s a natural response to |
|conflict. We should be aware that there are more productive ways of expressing anger, and venting should be done apart from the others. |
|What if the other party is the angry one? Take precautionary measures: Always go into a negotiation prepared to deal with the other party’s|
|anger. Mentally separate the management of anger from the negotiation itself. Try to find out beforehand how the other party behaves when |
|angry. Or simply be on the lookout for it during the negotiation. Then, if the other party becomes angry, help him or her use this behavior|
|productively. |
Show Transparency T5-8, Guidelines for Productively Expressing Anger and review each guideline.
|[pic] |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|By following these three guidelines, you will meet the conditions necessary for a cathartic expression of anger. And by directing the other|
|party’s expression of anger in this way, you will exercise a valuable negotiation-leadership skill. |
|If you choose the cooling-off option, you need to find a strong antidote to your anger (or the other person’s anger) and substantial ways |
|to relax, and you need to let your anger dissipate. You can go for a long walk or leave work early. If you must continue with the |
|negotiation, take a break. Do some deep-breathing exercises, go for a stroll, work out at the gym, or clear your mind as you sit quietly |
|and sip on a soft drink—whatever will help you to calm down. The more you can relax, the more you will release. |
|What if the other party is the angry one? Suggest taking a break, and then do something nice for this person, such as getting the other |
|party a cup of coffee or a can of soda. The point is to help the other party feel better and cool off. If he or she can’t cool down and has|
|to vent, listen sympathetically. Your extension of help can improve the atmosphere of the conflict situation, and you will be modeling good|
|style-leadership behavior as well. |
|Section Recap Exercise |
Ask participants to take a moment to fill in the blanks of the 9 statements on page 40 of the coursebook. Then review the answers, using the answer key below. Answer questions and provide feedback, as required.
|1. To get rid of anger, get the RED out. RED stands for rules , expectations , and demands . |
|2. It is helpful to make a list of your own REDs and to ask the other party to help you understand theirs. |
|3. Catharsis refers to the emotional relief and balanced good humor that you feel when you get over your anger. |
|4. A catharsis trap occurs when two parties vent their anger at each other, driving tempers up instead of cooling them off. |
|5. It is therefore best to vent apart from or around (circle one) others. |
|6. In expressing your own anger, try to direct it at its true source . |
|7. Listening skills are helpful in defusing your own and the other party’s anger . |
|8. It is often better to establish a cooling - off period than to vent anger in a negotiation. |
|9. When you understand why someone behaves as they do, it is easy to take a nonemotional, productive approach to your conflict with |
|them. |
Skill 4: Creativity
Use the following Discussion Notes to present the segment on Creativity. Tell the participants that this information is also covered on pages 41 through 44 of the Participant Coursebook for later reference.
|Discussion Notes |
|A dedicated negotiator wants all the parties to be satisfied with the outcome. Therefore, you must explore all the alternative ways to |
|resolve the conflict. This will take some creative thinking, but it is the surest way to achieve an outcome that everyone is satisfied |
|with. |
Show Transparency T5-9, Creativity.
|[pic] |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|Creativity helps you to . . . |
|• Think of new and different alternatives. It takes creativity to think of many alternative explanations for a puzzling piece of |
|negotiating behavior. The more alternatives you think of, the more likely you are to hit upon the correct one. |
|• Think of new strategies to advance your cause. The more alternatives you can think of, the more likely you are to find a great one. The |
|creative approach to conflict stops and says, “Hey, I’m arguing for Option A, you’re arguing for Option B. Before we resolve that argument,|
|I wonder if there is an Option C, D, E, and F!” (Note that the coursebook includes a list of examples participants can refer to if they |
|have trouble generating their own.) |
|• Redefine the situation. This is the hardest thing to do in a negotiation, but it offers the greatest returns if you are successful. The |
|trick is to use your insight into the underlying interests to think of new ways to define the problem. The trick is to steer “talk” and |
|“think” in terms of the lower layers—the underlying interests at stake. |
|For instance, instead of arguing over who does a report, you might say, “Well, the real issue is that we are all too busy to spend the time|
|writing up a lengthy report that nobody really wants to read anyway. Let’s focus on how we can meet the requirement of keeping the |
|management and other teams informed about what we do without it having to take so long and be so difficult.” |
|That is a great example of redefining the problem. Now you can see that if you can solve that problem well, you will have taken care of |
|both of your underlying interests. And most likely, some of those many alternative solutions you imagined above might prove relevant to |
|this new definition of the problem. (If not, you can just brainstorm some more. Everyone knows how to brainstorm or generate a long list of|
|possibilities, but few people actually use their brainstorming skills in a conflict situation.) |
|Now we will examine some skills that fall into the category of applied creativity. Applied creativity is the ability to use creative |
|thinking to accomplish practical goals. Here are some |
|of the techniques of applied creativity. Learn them now so that you can pull them out of your mental toolbox whenever you need a |
|“breakthrough idea” during a conflict. |
Show Transparency T5-10, Applied Creativity.
|[pic] |
|Tell the participants . . . |
|These are some of the techniques of Applied Creativity. If you learn how to use them, you can pull them out of your mental toolbox whenever|
|you need a breakthrough idea during a conflict. |
|1. Examine Your Assumptions |
|An assumption is any belief upon which you rely. In negotiations, all parties have a set of shared assumptions, and sometimes each party |
|has additional assumptions unique to their position. Many assumptions are made about the other party or their interests that stand in the |
|way of a win-win outcome unless proven false. |
|2. List Your Assumptions, and Then Reverse Them |
|There are two related techniques to help you examine assumptions. First, try to write a list of all the assumptions made by both parties. |
|You can even do it in a three-column list, with one column for each party and a shared assumptions column in the middle so that you can |
|easily see which are shared assumptions and which are not. |
|At first, you will probably only come up with a few, but with patience and practice, you will soon realize that there are dozens of |
|assumptions underlying most conflicts. |
|To reverse an assumption, state it in the most opposite way possible. For instance, you might reverse the assumption that a team progress |
|report has to be written by the end of the month in any or all of these ways: |
|• The report does not have to be written until later. |
|• The report never has to be written. |
|• The report does not have to be written—it can be prepared and delivered in more creative ways. |
|Of course, at first such reverse assumptions sound completely crazy. They look like the opposite of the truth. They look wrong. But now |
|comes the imaginative part: |
|Can you think of ways to make any of them be true? |
|If you can, you will have found a possible way to break through and achieve a win-win outcome, so it is well worth the energy to try. |
|Let’s work our example a moment longer to demonstrate how to use reverse assumptions to achieve mental breakthroughs. To make the reverse |
|assumption “The report never has to be written” valid instead of ridiculous, you’d have to think of what function(s) the report serves. |
|Then if you can find easy alternative ways to perform the same functions, writing the report might not even be necessary. For example: |
|Perhaps nobody reads the report, in which case you could just blow it off, |
|or file a nice-looking binder with nothing inside it! |
|More than likely, the report helps keep some people informed about the team’s work. Maybe the function is to coordinate this team’s work |
|with other teams by sharing information. In that case, maybe you could just circulate minutes from each meeting and avoid having to write |
|periodic reports (which would probably just be based on the minutes anyway). |
|Here are a few creative alternatives: |
|• Perhaps the main function is to permit some manager to maintain oversight—someone who might not have any other way of knowing whether the|
|team is on target. If you asked the manager what key performance measures or indicators they are looking for, you might be able to condense|
|the report down to one page and just drop in the latest figures once a week before passing it in for review. |
|• Another advantage of a monthly team report is that it keeps all the team members informed about what each member is doing. If that’s |
|important in this case, then you might decide to have each team member give a short written or verbal report on their work to the rest of |
|the team. That would be much easier and less formal than having one person collect and integrate all their different results into a formal |
|report. |
|• Even if the report serves important functions, there is always the possibility that your team already generates other information that |
|fulfills the same function. If there are minutes of meetings, reports from individual members, or other records, these might be enough to |
|serve the same purpose. What sources does the person writing the report use? If it is just a pile of minutes or a stack of e-mails, then |
|why not circulate those directly to the people who the report now goes to, and do away with the report? |
|As this example demonstrates, you can dig down below the surface of assumptions. Most people don’t, and that’s why win-win solutions are so|
|rare. But they need not be, providing you take the time to apply your imagination. |
Divide the large group into two smaller groups—Group A and Group B. Give each group one sheet of flipchart paper and a marker. Each group should appoint a recorder to enter information on the flipchart page.
Ask the participants:
|[pic] |What are some of the assumptions you made regarding this training? |
Allow 5 minutes for the participants to identify their assumptions. The recorder for each group should write their group’s answers on the flipchart page. When each group is finished, hang the pages side by side, labeled Group A and Group B.
Have the larger group look at both lists and identify shared assumptions. Then encourage them to find those unique to specific individuals.
Next, select one assumption and reverse it. Brainstorm ways that this assumption could be true.
Tell the participants that you will now explore different ways to look at the same problem, and identify some creative solutions.
Let’s take a look at another technique of applied creativity:
|3. Redefine the Problem |
|Negotiations are generally based on what the parties think is the problem, but there is always more than one way to look at a problem. |
|Perhaps the “problem” isn’t the problem at all, but really more like a symptom of something else. Looking at the “problem” from another |
|perspective often leads to a novel solution that might just be the best idea of them all. |
|For example, members of a quality improvement team argued over who should take responsibility for writing up a lengthy report to management|
|on the team’s work. |
|The team leader defined the problem as “Team members are shirking their duty, and refuse to do work when I assign it to them.” However, |
|this statement of the “problem” made the other members of the team mad and failed to suggest any good solutions. |
|The leader then had the team members redefine the problem. Team members suggested that “Outside demands on team members are such that no |
|one has the time to write lengthy reports.” |
|This new perspective surfaced new issues, such as the dual-reporting structure of the new team-oriented organization, the need for |
|coordination among the heads of the different departments from which team members are drawn, and the fact that peak work loads in the |
|company happen to coincide with the times when team reports are due to management. |
|If defining the problem differently does not lead to full resolution of the problem, |
|you can try yet another definition. |
|Sometimes it takes repeated efforts to resolve the conflict. Our sample team re-examined its problem and decided to adopt a different |
|problem definition: “Writing a lengthy report is an unfair burden on any single team member.” This new definition led the team to develop a|
|new process for report-writing, in which each member drafts a small section. The best writers then pull the sections together and prepare |
|the final version of the report. |
NOTE: Tell the participants that more details of the report-writing example are provided on pages 41 through 44 of the coursebook. If you wish, allow a few minutes for participants to read the example.
|Creativity Leads to Cooperation and Innovation |
|Applied creativity can lead negotiators to a more cooperative style. By redefining the problem, negotiators are able to see all the |
|possibilities for a solution. The best solutions usually involve collaboration. |
|When all the parties in a negotiation talk about what they think is true and then explore several different ways of looking at what they |
|thought was the problem, they will slowly begin to trust each other. Applied creativity generally leads to a more trusting, cooperative, |
|and innovative atmosphere in the workplace or the home, or wherever it is practiced. |
|The payoffs of creative, flexible negotiation can be felt throughout the workplace: as in corporate culture, increased productivity, and |
|worker satisfaction. |
|The final advantage of a creative approach to negotiation is that it allows for individual development and personal expression, which are |
|at the core of good negotiating. The best negotiators are highly creative because negotiations require considerable improvisation. And the |
|creative approach allows individual negotiators to improvise a new approach to each negotiation—one that is best suited to the unique |
|situation as well as to the personalities and style preferences of the parties involved. |
|Section Recap Exercise |
Ask participants to take a moment to fill in the blanks of the seven statements on page 45 of the coursebook. Then review the answers, using the answer key below. Answer questions and provide feedback, as required.
|1. Creativity helps negotiators gain insight into the other party’s motives, think of new strategies , and redefine the negotiating |
| situation . |
|2. An assumption is any belief upon which you rely . |
|3. To be creative, you need to examine your assumptions . |
|4. Brainstorming a list of both parties’ assumptions is a helpful exercise for negotiators. |
|5. A reverse assumption is the “opposite” of another assumption. Sometimes it turns out to be the true one. |
|6. You can often achieve a negotiating breakthrough by redefining the problem. |
|7. A creative approach to negotiation tends to increase the levels of trust, cooperation, and innovation, and allows for greater |
|improvisation by the negotiator. |
Appendix
Management Training Topic:
Conflict and Motivation
The Dealing with Conflict Instrument can also be used to help build employee motivation. If you are working with supervisors, managers, team leaders, or other people who are concerned about motivating others, the following learning points will help them see how they can boost motivation by managing conflict effectively.
Conflict Handling Styles Affect Employee Motivation
The level of conflict between employees and between employees and their managers or the organization as a whole is not very important. Motivation can be high when conflict is high, and it can also be high when conflict is low; you do not need to feel that you have to eliminate all conflict in order to motivate your people. That’s not a realistic goal anyway because there are often conflicting needs or points of view in any dynamic workplace. In fact, conflict is often a healthy thing.
But how conflict is handled does affect motivation to a significant extent. Specifically, constructive, considerate approaches to conflict generally boost employee job motivation levels. Other approaches tend to hurt motivation levels.
Our point is that you can boost motivation levels by encouraging the use of collaboration and compromise in your workplace. When you make more frequent use of these styles with your employees, you will see a gradual increase in job motivation. And when you encourage them to use these styles with each other, job motivation should be even more pronounced.
When managers recognize that employee motivation is sometimes influenced by the way a conflict is being handled (style), they will start looking at a conflict as an opportunity to build employee motivation.
Here is how conflict-handling style generally affects motivation:
|Style |Impact on |
| |Job Motivation |
|Compete |Negative |
|Accommodate |Negative to neutral |
|Avoid |Negative to neutral |
|Compromise |Neutral to positive |
|Collaborate |Positive |
Managers who want to increase employee motivation should focus primarily on reducing the use of the Compete style, and increasing the use of the Collaborate style.
Explaining the Relationship between Conflict Style and Motivation
Employee motivation is affected by the way a person deals with a particular conflict because the style—Compete, Accommodate, Avoid, Compromise, or Collaborate—helps determine the amount of structure and consideration in the employee’s job environment. And both structure and consideration are powerful drivers of motivation levels. Here’s what we mean:
Structure is the rational context for the work. It is provided when we define the task, the goals, and the feedback. It is “high” structure when employees know what to do, how they are doing, and why their work is important. Managers who simply delegate broad or vague responsibilities fail to provide enough work structure. When employees and managers have conflicts, taking a collaborative approach will lead to higher structure, which thereby leads to more effective performance. Avoiding the conflict or taking a competitive or adversarial approach will not help employees clearly understand what is expected of them.
Consideration is the emotional context for the work. It is provided by appropriate interpersonal relations, empathetic supervision, and employee control over outcomes. It is high when employees feel good about what they need to do and are optimistic about their ability to perform meaningful work well. Managers who ignore the personal side of their relationships with employees or who are unsupportive, negative, abusive, or rude toward employees fail to show that they care about their employees. When employees and managers have conflicts, a collaborative approach leads to higher consideration and thereby supports the employee’s emotional frame effectively. Other conflict-handling styles have a neutral or even negative impact on consideration.
Profiting from the Relationship between Conflict Style and Motivation
Manager–employee interactions need to be modeled on the Collaborate conflict-handling style in order to maximize the amount of structure and consideration employees receive directly from their managers. That, in turn, boosts employee job motivation, which leads to significantly better individual and organizational performances.
In addition, employees can provide a significant amount of structure and consideration for each other by shifting toward a more Collaborate conflict-handling style. Busy managers can shift some of the burden of providing motivational management to their employees by encouraging them to use the Collaborate style.
When managers model Collaborate conflict-handling behavior in their interactions with employees, they help employees learn to use styles that involve collaboration. Conflict-handling styles can be taught by example!
[For more information on conflicts and motivation, see Alex Hiam’s Streetwise Motivating, published by Adams Media (1999), or visit the Web site.]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- words dealing with cosmetics
- dealing with teenagers with asperger s
- another word for dealing with a situation
- dealing with someone with asperger s
- dealing with asperger child
- dealing with hateful people
- women dealing with erectile dysfunction
- dealing with mean people
- dealing with two faced people
- dealing with thesaurus
- dealing with people with asperger s
- word for dealing with people