Download our approach - Pilati and Associates

Resolving Conflict in the Workplace
By David A. Pilati
Conflict within and between businesses is a fact of life. Most people feel uncomfortable around conflict and
it has a way of bringing out the worst in people. Historically, management attempted to suppress, eliminate
and control it. Conflict was seen as destructive, a symptom of an unhealthy organization.
More recently, conflict has been considered inevitable and not necessarily harmful, but it can be either
functional or dysfunctional. On the negative side, conflict is associated with disorder, violence, turmoil,
defeat, war, bad feelings and mistrust. From a positive perspective, conflict is viewed as a stimulus for
change and creativity, as well as an essential element for progress and innovation. Analysts believe the
failures of Studebaker and Penn Central were primarily a result of too little conflict. Hence, the old business
saying, "If two business partners are always in total agreement, then the business doesn’t need one of them."
As organizations have moved from controlling and suppressing conflict to exploring and harnessing it,
managers find themselves spending more time dealing with conflict. The American Management Association
estimates that upper-level private-sector managers spend about one-quarter of their time handling conflict.
Some sources report that this figure is upwards of 50 to 60 percent in the public sector.
Consequently, executives need both a better understanding of conflict and the ability to access reliable tools
for its management. One management tool that has provided excellent results is mediation. In contrast to
other approaches, such as avoidance or competition, mediation embraces collaboration. While each style is
appropriate under certain circumstances, the collaborative approach has particular advantages.
In collaborative conflict resolution the situation itself, rather than the opposing parties, is defined as the
problem. Acknowledging this perspective frees individuals to move beyond blaming and/or defensive
postures to face the larger challenge at hand — solving the defined "problem." This focus devalues the
concept of winning at any cost and diminishes investment in rigid positions in favor of appreciation of
differences, flexibility and mutual respect. The collaborative style promotes creativity, honors personal
integrity and tends to preserve relationships. This management style is also consistent with increasing
employee involvement, participation and empowerment.
MEDIATION MODEL
Mediation is a conflict-resolution process in which disputants (individuals or groups) meet with a neutral
third party (the mediator) to resolve their differences face-to-face in a totally confidential and safe setting.
In addressing several issues, the mediator uses consensual agreement on minor issues to establish a common
ground and to encourage the parties to continue working together on the more complicated problems. While
the mediator facilitates the process, the disputants determine the content and any agreement reached during
the session.
The best-selling book, Getting to Yes, offers several key suggestions for negotiating that are also desirable
mediation practices. First, the mediator separates people from the defined problem and maintains a focus on
the issue. Second, negotiations should be interest-based and not based on individual positions. The first
suggestion helps the mediator avoid being "hooked into" the personal issues of the disputants and enables
him/her to maintain an appropriate and objective emotional distance. Interest-based negotiations increase the
probabilities for creative problem solving where both parties feel like winners in contrast to the win-lose
focus of adversarial methods of conflict resolution.
Mediators display several other characteristics which promote successful resolution of conflicts. Unlike
adversarial approaches that tend to rely heavily on the information from past behavior, mediation is futureoriented, focusing on future actions that will reduce or preclude the conflict. In addition, a mediator attempts
to balance power between the parties. For example, if there were an imbalance of power due to the
inaccessibility of information to one of the parties, the mediator might provide that information.
The above mediation model has been employed successfully in both large and small organizations. However,
this style is fundamentally different from the form of mediation most familiar to American business, that of
labor-management mediation.
Historically, labor-management mediation has often been highly manipulative—with shuttle diplomacy as a
prominent feature. Disputing parties are commonly separated from each other as the mediator "shuttles" back
and forth persuading the opposing parties to "cut a deal."
The mediation model presented in this article is "softer". The mediator serves as a facilitator or guide. This
style of mediation encourages the parties to speak directly to one another on the issue in question and can be
used within organizations for interpersonal and interdepartmental conflicts. It is also an effective and proven
tool to circumvent possible lawsuits, saving both parties significant time and money, and increasing the
likelihood of keeping valued relationships intact. As evidence of this style’s success, many labormanagement mediators have softened their approach and become more interest-based.
MANAGERIAL MEDIATION
Personality conflicts between employees can engender ill will, lower productivity and decrease profits.
Managers are in an excellent position to intervene in these conflicts and employ managerial mediation as an
effective strategy, but guidance and/or training in mediation techniques is crucial.
The manager-as-mediator must first intervene and structure the context of the process. This begins with
private meetings with each individual to determine his or her side of the story and for the manager to explain
the purpose, guidelines and procedures for a scheduled three-way meeting. The manager selects a neutral
location for this meeting and assures that there will be no distractions.
Keeping in mind the mediation process described above, the manager-as-mediator performs two primary
tasks during the three-way meeting. The first is to isolate and define the problem and keep the parties talking
to each other directly about the issues. The second is to notice and openly acknowledge any conciliatory
gestures made by either disputant that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.
Given the opportunity to clearly confront one another and be heard in a safe setting, employees are likely to
reconcile their differences without the mediator forcing an external solution. However, the mediator might
help in brainstorming options or in structuring their agreements. After initial mediation goals have been met,
periodic follow-up meetings are usually recommended.
The challenge for the manager is to temporarily suspend his or her authority during this process. However,
the rewards for the successful manager-as-mediator include boosting employee morale, showing the fairness
and objectivity of the manager, demonstrating the commitment to employee welfare, and increasing the
possibility for ongoing successful problem solving within the company as a whole.
The difficulties of this approach include soliciting management support, establishing employee confidence in
the process and trusting the manager-mediator to demonstrate confidentiality, neutrality and a growing
respect for individual differences.
CONSULTANT/MEDIATOR INTERVENTION
Professional mediators receive extensive training in communication, psychological dynamics, conflict
resolution and negotiations. On a consulting basis, they are available to intervene in both interpersonal and
intergroup conflicts. Similar to the presented mediation model, specifically designed processes are employed
to deal with group conflicts.
While mediation is a tool that can be used by managers to resolve interpersonal conflicts between
subordinates, there are situations in which an independent mediator is more appropriate. These include the
following:
• When the manager is not a neutral party and/or intends to advocate directly or indirectly for a
particular position
• When the manager chooses to be an active member of the team or group in conflict
• When the manager wants to insure external objectivity
• When the number of people and/or issues involved necessitates additional outside help
• When the intensity and/or hostility has escalated to the degree that the parties are not willing to sit
down with anyone affiliated with the company
• When the manager’s skill level precludes a high probability of success
BUSINESS MEDIATION
Disputes between businesses have traditionally been handled by attorneys through lawsuits and the legal
system. However, litigation is expensive, time-consuming, emotionally taxing and often destroys
relationships. U.S. business executives are discovering the benefits of alternative approaches that are more
direct and less costly. Mediation is a popular choice.
Advantages of mediation include:
• Greater likelihood that business relationships will be preserved
• Increased possibility for longer lasting and mutually beneficial settlements
• Promotes individual and corporate responsibility
• Insures confidentiality
There is minimal risk in mediation. Sessions are structured to promote safety and individual integrity and are
protected by a contractual agreement to guarantee confidentiality. In the case of pending litigation, mediation
is generally viewed by the court system as settlement discussions which are not admissible in court as
evidence. As a voluntary process, either party can withdraw at any time. The American Arbitration
Association claims that four out of five cases result in out-of-court settlements. However, to be successful,
parties should be knowledgeable about the process and carefully prepare their case, as in any negotiation.
IN PRACTICE
Mediators have used the model described above in a wide variety of situations. These include personal
conflicts between white-collar professionals, laborers, factory workers and family members. Conflicts range
from personality clashes to role and goal clarification between managers to partnership dissolution. Group
processes have been implemented for interdepartmental conflicts, as well as resolution of large-group
conflicts.
Establishing the context in which the mediation session will occur is probably the most important action a
mediator can take to insure success. Most disputants are unfamiliar with mediation and need to fully
understand "the rules of the game." Individuals who believe that a mediator is the one responsible for solving
the problem are more likely to end at impasse.
Conflicts are generally fueled by strongly felt and, many times, well-hidden emotional issues. The privacy
and confidentiality of mediation encourages the safe venting of emotions which usually expedites
conciliation. Unfortunately, cultural and organizational norms that generate statements like "he who loses his
cool, loses" perpetuate defensive and rigid postures that undermine the flexible nature of mediation.
Many conflicts stem from one or both parties sensing that they have not been heard by the other. Mediators
confess that they are amazed by the "magic" that occurs when feuding individuals take the time in mediation
to really hear the other side.