Managing Difficult Conflicts Richard A. Posthuma, J.D., Ph.D., GPHR, SPHR 2010 This presentation provides several important ideas that can be applied in particularly difficult conflict situations.

Parties often become angry in disputes because: Anger in Disputes Parties often become angry in disputes because: They are frustrated with not being able to get what they want. They see that the other party has different interests than they do. One of the key factors that makes some conflicts particularly difficult is that negative emotions such as anger cause people to behave in irrational ways. Anger is a result of frustration that arises when people don’t get want they want or when they are directly confronted with the reality that the other party wants something very different. Often when one party is angry, that makes another party angry as well. © SHRM 2010

Negative Effects of Anger Lower regard for opponent’s interest. Less accuracy in judging opponent’s interests. Use of more contentious tactics. More likely to reject settlement offers. Less thought about the consequences of one’s own negative actions. Less restraint in the face of threats. Lower levels of joint gains. Can lead to conflict spirals. Higher incidence of impasse. Anger can result in several things that impair the ability of parties to work together to resolve their conflict. © SHRM 2010

Positive Effects of Anger Indicates to the other person that the issue is very important. Indicates to the other person that you are less likely to make concessions. May induce the other party to yield when they are in a weaker position. Nevertheless, there are also some positive effects of anger. © SHRM 2010

Have momentum that is difficult to stop. Outcomes: Impasse. Conflict Spirals Conflict spirals: When parties engage in repeated contentious communications with each other. Problems: Tend to induce reciprocating contentious communications from the other party. Have momentum that is difficult to stop. Outcomes: Impasse. Settlements tend to be more one-sided, with the more powerful party winning. When there is a particularly difficult conflict situation, a conflict spiral can develop. There is the potential that if a conflict spiral spins out of control, the employees will try to retaliate by engaging in counterproductive behaviors at work. This could include theft, disruption or even violence. Sources: Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim (1994). Social Conflict, Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement. 2nd Ed. McGraw Hill. Sackett, P. & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive Behaviors at Work. In Neil Anderson, Deniz Ones, Handan Sinangil, & Chockalingham Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Oganizational Psychology Vol.1. London: Sage. © SHRM 2010

People tend to reciprocate similarly: Norm of Reciprocity People tend to reciprocate similarly: Contentious behavior with contentious behavior (e.g., threats). Integrative behaviors with integrative behaviors (e.g., “How can we both get something out of this?”). The norm of reciprocity works like an informal social rule. It is an expectation that if someone does something good for me, I should do something good for them, and vice versa. Source: Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim (1994). © SHRM 2010

Avoiding and Ending Conflict Spirals Don’t reciprocate Can break the spiral. May, however, erroneously signal a weakness or willingness to concede. GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension reduction) Make and request small steps to reduce tensions. Requires reciprocity. Mixed communications Avoids sending weakness signals. Restrict precedents One good way to avoid a conflict spiral is to simply not reciprocate. Another good way is to try GRIT. GRIT stands for Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension reduction (Osgood, 1962). These might be effective in reducing tension, but there is always a concern that if you make conciliatory overtures to your opponent, you might send signals that you are weak or willing to make unilateral concessions without anything in return. Mixed communications are both contentious and conciliatory. They have proven to be successful in avoiding the problem of sending a signal of weakness. In these, a party states that they are willing, able, and/or prepared to be competitive in the conflict, but are also willing to make a small concession to get things moving toward a settlement if the other party is willing to reciprocate. Another way to reduce the spiral is to refocus away from positions and start talking about the process of resolving the conflict. Source: Lewicki, Barry, Saunders, & Minton (2003). © SHRM 2010

Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction (GRIT) One party initiates de-escalation by: Announcing a concession. Explaining that the concession is part of a strategy to reduce escalation. Unilaterally executing the concession. Creates an opportunity for and expectation that the opponent will reciprocate with a concession. Problem: They may just take the concession and not reciprocate. This is a method to reduce particularly difficult conflicts by taking small steps. The sequence begins with small steps that are reciprocated by each party and then move to bigger steps (Osgood,1962). For example, in collective bargaining negotiations, the company may begin the process to reduce tensions by making a small concession such as increasing the employee uniform allowance from $100 to $150. Then, there is an expectation that the union should reciprocate by making a concession of their own, e.g., dropping a demand for new chairs in the cafeteria. The parties gradually begin to talk about more serious issues, making reciprocal concessions on those issues as well. Eventually, they will reach an overall agreement. © SHRM 2010

Mixed Communications Mixed: Sometimes it’s best to mix a contentious statement with a conciliatory statement. Examples: Contentious: Party 1 states, “If you persist in these demands, we’d prefer to see you in court, where we expect the judge to find in our favor.” Mixed: Party 2 responds, “We are prepared to let a judge decide, but we think that we will both be better off if we reach an agreement based on our interests. Tell me again what your software needs are.” Sometimes negotiators face a dilemma in that they want to reach an agreement and are willing to make some concessions, but they don’t want to appear weak for fear that their opponent might not recriprocate. Using mixed communications can help to resolve this dilemma (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998). © SHRM 2010

Sometimes, “labeling” the process is helpful. It changes the focus to the negotiation process instead of on the parties’ positions. Examples of labeling the process that you’ve been following as ineffective: “We seem to be going back and forth and getting nowhere.” “We’re not going to settle things this way. Let’s focus on how we can go about settling the problem.” Rather than talking about the actual issues, such as a demand for a 10 percent wage increase from the employer or a proposal to cut health insurance benefits, the parties could talk about the process of negotiation in general terms. The process can be labeled as ineffective, stalled, or something else, and then the parties can talk about how they can agree to make the process more effective. When they reach an agreement on how to improve the process, they can use the process to move toward agreements on the issues. Source: Fisher & Ury (1991). Getting to Yes. Penguin Books. © SHRM 2010

Restrict Precedents By restricting the degree to which a settlement may set a precedent, the stakes are lower and the parties may be more willing to reach an agreement. A key concern that one party may have that another does not is whether a settlement will create a precedent that could be used against them in future cases. Nevertheless, it is often possible to avoid this situation by either: Making an agreement between the parties that they will not use this settlement as a precedent in future cases; or Making the terms of the settlement confidential so that other parties will not know about or be able to use the terms of this settlement to their advantage. This is often the case in employer-employee conflict situations. The employer might be willing to settle the present case, but is concerned about the precedent that might be set for the future. © SHRM 2010

Sometimes conflicts are particularly difficult to resolve. Summary Sometimes conflicts are particularly difficult to resolve. A common reason is that anger interferes with rational thinking and behaviors. Often, conflict spirals develop in which the conflict gets worse. There are several methods for managing difficult conflicts, managing emotions, and reducing the tensions that result from conflict spirals. © SHRM 2010