CONFLIC !

"#OL$ ION
Fo%mal a&d I&'o%mal (%oc)ss)s

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

Conflict Management Processes Generally, conflict management literature makes a distinction between two main types of conflict management processes: rights-based and interest-based. Rights-Based rocesses: ! rights-based process focuses on an indi"idual#s claims and the facts that support these claims. $t is a formal way of resol"ing conflicts, which may in"ol"e assessing whether or not an employee#s rights ha"e been infringed upon. %raditionally, in a rights-based process, the opposite sides of a conflict are competing to con"ince a decision-maker &'udge or ad'udicator( to decide on the outcome of the conflict in a way that fa"ors one party o"er the other. )uch a process seeks to determine whether a legal or contractual right has been "iolated, and the parties compete to protect their rights and*or positions. %he solution to the conflict is imposed on the parties by an outside party, which typically results in one or both sides feeling unsatisfied with the decided outcome. %he grie"ance procedure is an e+ample of a rights-based process.

Im Right Hes Wrong I rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case, awarding him his job bac with bac pa!" I win, !ou lose#

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

$nterest-Based rocesses: !n interest-based process is an alternati"e ,process in which parties focus on their underlying interests &i.e. needs, desires, concerns, fears( rather than on their positions in an attempt to understand each other#s real interests and propose options which meet as many of the interests of all parties as possible. $nterest-based processes attempt to identify and address deeper concerns that may be at the root of a problem &the cause( as opposed to only resol"ing or fi+ing what appears on the surface &the effect(. $nstead of bargaining o"er people#s positions, which are generally solutions that a party considers to be their most gainful outcome, the interests are considered, which are the underlying reasons for a person#s position or personal need. $t is an informal way of resol"ing disputes through respectful*acti"e listening and discussions designed to transform the traditional tug-of-war process into a more cooperati"e and collaborati"e approach to problem sol"ing. -+amples of interest-based processes are facilitation, mediation, conflict coaching, etc. definitions(. )e"eral key features of interest-based processes include: )eparating the people from the problem .nderstanding, without 'udging, the other party#s perceptions /ot allowing emotions and feelings to cloud one#s ob'ecti"ity 0ommunicating effecti"ely by using acti"e listening and clearly e+changing messages to a"oid misunderstandings

$nterest-based processes are the foundation of informal conflict management systems.

%he iceberg analogy is often referred to when addressing the sub'ect of interest-based processes:

%he portion abo"e waterline includes concerns such as positions or rights, which are typically dealt with through the use of formal*rights-based processes. %he submerged part of the iceberg represents the personal interests of the party, the fundamental underlying factors contributing to any gi"en conflict &which do not always come to light during formal rights-based processes(.

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

%his image symboli1es the concept that when only the problems at the tip of the iceberg are e+amined, issues residing underwater are more likely to e"entually surface. 2or this reason, interest-based processes are complementary to formal processes.

$e and %ou &gainst 'he (roblem

Spectrum of Conflict Management Options
%here are a wide "ariety of options a"ailable to indi"iduals in conflict. %he spectrum below ranges from informal*collaborati"e processes to more traditional*formal processes, and is an e+ample of where some of those options would be situated on a linear scale. 3owe"er, a fle+ible $04) allows for the free mo"ement among all of its options, and the passage from one process to another does not ha"e to be se5uential. %his spectrum is not meant to be all-inclusi"e.

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

INFORMAL OPTIONS

- interest-based; when there is a clash between two parties; both parties decide what option will meet their needs; both parties discuss their issues with a neutral, independent and skilled thirdparty person (not a decision-maker); role may be confidential coach, ombudsperson, facilitator or mediator; both parties decide on the processes and outcomes; more than one option may be used in conjunction; both parties resolve their differences relative to their interests; no legal advice is given

Consultation %he purpose of a consultation is to brainstorm, to get appropriate referrals to 0ompany resources, to get information about policies and practices, or to get the perspecti"e of a neutral person not connected to the dispute. 0onflict resolution staff is knowledgeable about 0ompany policy and resources and are skilled in conflict resolution. $ndi"idual consultations with staff can help employees clarify their interests and identify and e"aluate options. %he 6ffice for 0onflict Resolution is not an ad"ocate for any group of employees. 0onflict resolution staff does not pro"ide legal ad"ice7 they are not trained as therapists nor are they arbiters of policy disputes. %heir role is to ser"e as third-party, skilled neutrals to help employees e+press differences, e"aluate interests, and reach resolution. 4any employees find that consultations are all that they need or want. %hey appreciate the confidential nature of the consultation process and the fact that they decide what the ne+t steps will be. 0onflict 0oaching 0onflict coaching helps employees to de"elop and impro"e the way they deal with conflict. $t helps employees to manage their personal conflicts by identifying goals for effecti"e conflict management, impro"e communication and problem-sol"ing skills, shift reactions from detrimental to constructi"e, change negati"e beha"iors, and pro"ide for reflection on conflict interactions. 0oaching can be performed by super"isors, managers, peers, human resource professionals, 6mbuds, trainers or e+ternal consultants. %he role of the coach is to train a "oluntary participant to manage conflict on his or her own. Ombuds $n an ombuds role, conflict resolution staff recei"e complaints and 5uestions from employees concerning different issues. -mployees decide which initiati"es, if any, conflict resolution staff should take to process the conflict. 0onflict resolution staff may contact other in"ol"ed employees to gather, and to con"ey information. %hrough dialogue with in"ol"ed indi"iduals, the ombuds helps the parties understand each other#s perspecti"es and identify workable resolution options. 6ptions are identified and e"aluated. 6mbuds ser"ices are "ery fle+ible. %hey can be structured to meet the needs of each indi"idual matter. Facilitation 8hen an employee re5uests a facilitated dialogue, conflict resolution staff gathers information on the nature of the dispute, who else may be in"ol"ed and what needs to be discussed. )taff then contact the other in"ol"ed employees to con"ey the re5uest and to schedule a facilitated dialogue. -mployees need to be strongly encouraged to participate in facilitated dialogue, when re5uested. ! facilitated dialogue is a face-to-face discussion between the disputing parties with a third-party neutral facilitator. .sually the facilitator asks the employee raising the issue to e+plain the issue from his*her perspecti"e. 6ther employees are then in"ited to participate. -ach participant has the opportunity to ask 5uestions for information. %he facilitator may ask 5uestions. !ll participants are in"ol"ed in discussions to identify their respecti"e interests, brainstorm possible options for resolutions, and e"aluate the options against the interests to reach accords. Mediation 0onflict resolution staff are trained mediators. %he parties usually participate together in general Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

discussions and in separate caucus meetings with the mediator. 4ediation is usually a more structured process than a facilitated meeting and includes a written agreement to mediate that assures the confidentiality of the mediation process. /egotiation /egotiation is the most basic form of dispute resolution and in"ol"es two parties interacting directly with each other to arri"e at a mutually satisfactory accommodation. arties who contemplate entering into negotiations may engage a third party neutral to pro"ide a con"ening function. /egotiation can be the 9traditional9 model of hard bargaining where the interests of a group far outweigh the working relationships concerned. %he 9principled9 negotiation model is where both the interests and the working relationships concerned are "iewed as important. Conciliation 0onciliation is a process whereby the parties to a dispute &including future interest disputes( agree to utili1e the ser"ices of a conciliator, who then meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resol"e their differences.

Advantages - Bringing an ob'ecti"e, unbiased third-party to the discussion can contribute significantly to an effecti"e outcome. - Both parties identify the solution to their differences that also sol"es a workplace problem. - Both parties are more willing and committed to bringing about a longer-term change. Appropriateness the indi"iduals in dispute are willing to address and try to settle their issue&s( parties want an informal and fle+ible process ignoring the problem is not "iable other options for resol"ing the dispute are not acceptable &i.e., formal grie"ance process( there is interest in maintaining the relationship a case is comple+ and re5uires a creati"e solution parties prefer to resol"e their dispute in pri"ate

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

FORMAL OPTIONS - rights-based; when there is a crisis between two parties; both parties
have irreconcilable interests or positions; a professional hears both sides and decides the outcome

rievance $n a unioni1ed organi1ation, a grie"ance is a formal complaint against the employer, in written format, usually filed by a union steward on behalf of a member of the local union. $t is typically understood as any difference arising out of the interpretation, application, administration or alleged "iolation of the collecti"e bargaining agreement that is in effect at the place of employment but it can also concern "iolations of common law, such as workplace safety regulations or a human rights code. 6rdinarily, unioni1ed workers must ask their operations managers for time during work hours to meet with a shop steward in order to discuss the problem, which may or may not result in a grie"ance. $f the grie"ance cannot be resol"ed through negotiation between labor and management, mediation, arbitration or legal remedies may be employed. %ypically, e"eryone in"ol"ed with a grie"ance has strict timelines which must be met in the processing of this formal complaint, until it is resol"ed. -mployers cannot legally treat an employee any differently whether he or she has filed a grie"ance or not. %he difference between a grie"ance and a complaint, in the unioni1ed workplace, is whether the sub'ect matter relates to the collecti"e bargaining agreement. Investigation 8orkplace in"estigations establish legitimacy about findings of fact in contentious workplace conflicts, such as disciplinary matters, performance issues or workplace discrimination and harassment issues. %he in"estigation is performed by an e+ternal in"estigator or by a disinterested workplace participant &like another manager, 3R professional or 6mbuds(. %he in"estigator pro"ides obser"ations, findings of fact, and recommendations but lea"es decision-making to management. Arbitration ! legal techni5ue for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties in"ol"ed in a dispute refer it to one or more persons &the :arbitrators: or :arbitral tribunal:(, whose decision &the :award:( they agree to be bound to. Ad!udication %he legal process by which an arbiter or 'udge re"iews e"idence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties in"ol"ed. %hree types of disputes are resol"ed through ad'udication: 1. 2. 3. ;isputes between pri"ate parties, such as indi"iduals or corporations. ;isputes between pri"ate parties and public officials. ;isputes between public officials or public bodies.

Litigation ! lawsuit is a ci"il action brought before a court in which the party commencing the action, the plaintiff, seeks a legal remedy. 6ften, one or more defendants are re5uired to answer the plaintiff9s complaint. $f the plaintiff is successful, 'udgment will be gi"en in the plaintiff9s fa"or, and a range of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, impose a penalty, award damages, impose an in'unction to pre"ent an act or compel an act, or to obtain a declaratory 'udgment to pre"ent future legal disputes.

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com

A""ITIONAL INFORMAL OPTIONS

Internal Peer Revie# Panel )ome companies ha"e a committee that re"iews complaints and makes recommendations to senior management. %hese panels ha"e decision-making authority and thus are forums where employees can get their complaints addressed. %hey are usually comprised of senior, well respected employees and management members. 8hile they can range in actual authority, these panels normally do not normally ha"e the power to alter e+isting polices or other conditions of employment. $arl% Neutral $valuation &$N$' -arly neutral e"aluation &-/-( is used in the shadow of litigation to help the parties to determine the strengths and weaknesses of their case should they proceed to e+ternal litigation. -/- helps parties to reach agreement outside of litigation by clarifying what their litigation alternati"e might be. Advantages - ;ecisions are made by a third-party &i.e., arbitrator, 'udge, hearing officer, etc.( - %he outcome is binding. %he reward translates into action that in"ol"ed parties must comply with. Appropriateness 8hen: - the dispute cannot be resol"ed between the parties in"ol"ed. - both parties are unwilling to work toward a resolution on their issue&s(. - more formal legal inter"ention is re5uired. - the indi"iduals in"ol"ed do not ha"e the authority re5uired to sol"e the problem. - fact-gathering is critical for determining the appropriate outcome for parties in"ol"ed. - there is fear of "iolence between the indi"iduals in"ol"ed. - there is a need to set a precedence with regards to the issue of law.

Douglas. W. Bush, M.A. 2007 dwbush@aol.com