In a Nutshell
Managers often have to intervene
to resolve conflicts between two parties. The intervention strategy
employed, whether it's inquisition,
arbitration,
mediation
or a hybrid, should be the one that
best suits the manager's objectives. Mediation is the strategy that's
the most empowering for the parties in conflict. However, it can
be very time consuming, and some disputants never resolve their conflicts
through mediation no matter how hard the mediator tries. For this
reason, alternative strategies need to be considered. (I think arbitration-mediation
is a particularly clever hybrid!)
In This Issue
A
Framework for Comparing Intervention Strategies
As the June
11 LeaderLetter points out, one definition of interpersonal
conflict says that it's what occurs when the goal-directed behavior of
one party interferes with the goal-directed behavior of another.
To make that definition fit every conflict situation, the term "goal" has
to be interpreted very broadly to mean anything that people would like
to have occur. For instance, goals in this context must include things
like having a pleasant working environment, receiving a certain perk, being
treated with respect, getting a particular task completed, etc. Notice
that the definition of interpersonal conflict makes no reference to fighting
or losing. In fact, in order to build harmonious relationships
and improve organizational functioning, it's useful for parties in conflict
to view their dispute as a puzzle to be solved collaboratively and creatively
rather than as a fight to be won. For the purpose of this discussion,
I'll use the term resolution to refer to the end of the dispute
between two parties, even though such resolutions are often either (a)
ineffective solutions to the underlying problem or (b) not correctly implemented
by the disputants.
There are many ways for
managers to intervene and assist two parties in conflict in order to promote
conflict resolution, and there's no one best intervention strategy for
all situations. When managers intervene to resolve conflicts, they
should consider several objectives. Naturally, the primary objective
in many conflict situations is to find a good quality
solution to the problem that's causing the conflict. In
order to achieve that objective, the disputing parties must collaborate
toward finding the best possible solution. In addition, in order
for the parties to collaborate toward resolution they need to share information
with each other, make concessions, be open to the third party's suggestions,
and be realistic about what they consider a fair and effective resolution.
Managers also want the disputing parties to be committed
to complying with the resolution, because a great idea is worthless
if it isn't implemented, and disputants are usually the ones who have to
implement or comply with the resolution. Efficiency
is another key consideration when trying to resolve disputes. Conflicts
must be resolved efficiently so that parties can resume their work.
Finally, to maintain morale and motivation, managers should consider fairness
for and empowerment of their employees.
Appropriately or inappropriately, research shows that managers often select
an intervention strategy that asserts their own power and control at the
cost of their employees' sense of empowerment and fair treatment.
To keep staff members motivated,
it's important to make sure they feel like they're valued members of their
work group and organization. Staff members' sense of being valued
is partly determined by how fairly they perceive conflicts to be managed.
For staff members to strongly believe that conflicts are handled fairly,
they need to feel that both the process was fair and that the outcome (i.e.,
the resolution) is fair. Outcome fairness perceptions and
procedural
fairness perceptions are actually distinct concerns. Even when
disputants don't agree with a resolution imposed by their managers, they
still appreciate being listened to and having a chance to influence the
decision. Employees' fairness perceptions are least favorable when
they have no control over the decision making process (i.e., they have
no input) and when they are asked to comply with a ruling that they had
no control over. There is only so much unfair treatment employees
are willing to accept before there are noticeable negative reactions such
as lower motivation, counterproductive behaviors (e.g., undermining the
efforts of rival coworkers, or insubordination) or even quitting.
With these issues in mind, here's a framework for comparing third-party
dispute intervention strategies:
Inquisition
Too often, managers use
an inquisition strategy for dispute resolution. Inquisitors dominate
the conflict resolution process and they impose and enforce a resolution
that they perceive to be the most appropriate. They limit the collaborative
problem solving process in a number of important ways. First, they
generally operate on their assumptions of what the problem is and what
information is relevant in solving the problem. Second, they limit
the information that they gather to the information they specifically request
from disputants. Consequently, inquisitors make quick (but sometimes
rash) decisions to resolve conflicts.
Disputants are least likely
to be satisfied with or feel empowered by managerial inquisitions.
Inquisitors don't share control over the decision-making process or outcome
with the disputants--they leave no question as to who is in control!
An advantage of a manager retaining control of decision making is that
he or she can ensure that the resolution is consistent with the organization's
policies and objectives.
Just about any time a manager
intervenes to resolve a conflict, he or she needs to follow up to ensure
that the disputants are complying with the resolutions. This is particularly
important for inquisitors, because the disputants are least likely to be
satisfied with the resolutions produced by this intervention strategy.
Inquisitors may have to rely on more coercion ("do it or else") to gain
compliance than arbitrators or mediators do.
Arbitration
Like inquisitors, arbitrators
decide what the outcome of a dispute between two parties will be.
A major difference between the two intervention strategies is that arbitrators
do a more thorough job of considering the disputants' concerns. Arbitrators
conduct "hearings" where the disputants explain their concerns and their
preferences. When the arbitrators decide that they have heard enough
from both sides, they make a "ruling" that they perceive to be fair and
appropriate. Even though conducting thorough hearings takes more
time than inquisitions, arbitrators can still regulate how much time is
spent resolving the conflict when they arbitrate.
Disputants are likely to
be more satisfied with the arbitration process than they are with inquisitions.
To the extent that they get a fair hearing of their concerns, they'll be
inclined to believe that the process was fair. Arbitration isn't
much more empowering for disputants than inquisition interventions though.
Managerial arbitration of staff members' disputes demonstrates who's in
control. As mentioned above, that control can help ensure that the
resolution chosen is compatible with the organization's policies and objectives.
However, retaining so much control is not empowering to the disputants,
and they will tend to blame the arbitrator for decision they don't like.
Consequently, their commitment to and willingness to comply with the resolution
may be low.
Mediation
Compared to inquisition
and arbitration, mediation is the third-party dispute intervention strategy
that is most empowering for disputants. Mediators bring disputants
together and facilitate collaborative problem-solving processes.
Disputants have more latitude for raising their concerns and, when successful,
mediation results in a resolution that both parties have consented to.
Not all mediation efforts
are successful. There are several things mediators need to do to
increase the likelihood of successful mediation:
Hybrids of Mediation
and Arbitration
To capitalize on the advantages
of both arbitration and mediation, hybrid approaches have been used.
The best-known hybrid procedure is mediation-arbitration. While far
less common, the arbitration-mediation approach is also an option.
Mediation-arbitration.
This intervention has two phases. In the first phase, the third party
facilitates mediation. If resolution is not achieved by a predetermined
deadline, the second phase occurs where the third party imposes a resolution
of the conflict. This hybrid generally benefits from the advantages
of both mediation and arbitration. The mediation phase empowers disputants
by giving them an opportunity to find their own solution, even if that
opportunity is of limited duration. The arbitration phase allows
managers to control how much time they invest in resolving the conflict.
However, anticipation of
arbitration can affect the nature of the mediation. When disputants
expect the third party to make a ruling, they're inclined to exaggerate
their positions in order to sway the arbitrator. If the disputants
focus their attention on influencing the third party during the mediation
phase, there may be little cooperation between the disputants during mediation.
Disputants may try to get what they want from the third party rather than
from the party that they are in conflict with. Nevertheless, at least
there's the chance for mediation before the arbitrator takes control.
Arbitration-mediation.
Although not as common as mediation-arbitration, managers can use arbitration
followed by meditation to resolve conflicts. As with mediation-arbitration,
this approach also allows managers to utilize the advantages of mediation
and arbitration, but disputant's reactions are likely to be a little different.
Arbitration-mediation has
three phases. In the first phase, the third party serves as an arbitrator
by conducting hearings and making a ruling. That ruling is then placed
in a sealed envelope and displayed prominently. In the second phase,
the third party attempts to mediate the conflict. If the disputants
reach a resolution in the second phase, the envelope can be destroyed.
If the disputants do not arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution before
a predetermined deadline, the third and final phase is entered where the
envelope is opened and a binding resolution is revealed to the disputants.
Like mediation-arbitration,
arbitration-mediation provides disputants an opportunity to mediate their
conflict with bounds on the amount of time that will be permitted for mediation.
To a degree, disputants are encouraged to collaborate and empowered to
find their own resolution.
The major advantages of
arbitration-mediation over mediation-arbitration are likely to be in the
area of disputant collaboration. After the arbitrator's decision
has been made, there's less incentive for disputants to exaggerate their
positions. Mediating conflict with a sealed resolution to the conflict
literally on the table makes the uncertainty of the arbitrator's ruling
salient. As mentioned above, disputants like to have a sense of control
over outcomes, and the only way to control the outcomes after the envelope
is presented is by effectively participating in mediation. People
are generally risk-averse. For instance, most of us would rather
have $1000 than a 50% chance at $2000. Having the envelope on the
table may remind the disputants that relying on the arbitrator's ruling
is risky. To a degree, disputants would rather negotiate a known
resolution than take their chances with the envelope. Consequently,
disputants are more likely to cooperate, share information, make concessions,
consider the mediator's suggestions and arrive at a high quality resolution
through mediation.
On the other hand, arbitration-mediation
is less likely to be perceived as fair and, in turn, less likely to promote
high commitment to the resolution. First, none of the information
that emerges during the mediation phase can affect the arbitrator's decision,
so if mediation is fruitless the disputants may not like the arbitrators'
ruling because it's based strictly on ideas generated during the first
phase of the process. Second, employees may also think the tactic
of putting the ruling on the table is coercive or manipulative. The
pressure to engage in mediation may promote mediation, but it may also
engender resentment. For these reasons, arbitration-mediation may
put a higher burden on management to enforce compliance with the resolution.
In Summary, ...
There are advantages and
disadvantages to all strategies for third-party dispute intervention.
On a case-by-case basis, managers would do well to select the strategy
that best fits their primary objectives (i.e., decision quality, disputant
collaboration, commitment and compliance with the resolution, efficiency,
perceptions of fairness, or disputant empowerment).
Sources
McShane, S. L. & Von
Glinow, M. A. (2000). Organizational behavior, (9th
ed.) New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Ross, W. H. & Conlon,
D. E. (2000). Hybrid forms of third-party dispute resolution:
Theoretical implications of combining mediation and arbitration. Academy
of Management Review, 25(2): 416-427.
Sheppard, B. H. (1983).
Managers as inquisitors: Lessons from the law. In Negotiating
in organizations, M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (eds.), pp. 193-213.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron,
K. S. (2002). Developing management skills, (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
About the Photo
Referee Mohamed Saeed intervenes
to stop a confrontation between Germany's Christian Ziege (left) and Cameroon's
Lauren during a World Cup soccer match between Cameroon and Germany on
Tuesday June 11, 2002. (AP Photo/Christof Stache: e-mailed
to me from Yahoo! News; news.yahoo.com.)
About the Newsletter
and Subscriptions
LeaderLetter is written
by Dr. Scott Williams, Department of Management, Raj
Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
It is a supplement to my MBA 751 - Managing People in Organizations class.
It is intended to reinforce the course concepts and maintain communication
among my former MBA 751 students, but anyone is welcome to subscribe.
In addition, subscribers are welcome to forward this newsletter to anyone
who they believe would have an interest in it. To subscribe,
simply send an e-mail message to me requesting subscription. Of course,
subscriptions to the newsletter are free. To unsubscribe,
e-mail a reply indicating that you would like to unsubscribe.
E-mail Your Comments
Whether you are one of my
former students or not, I invite you to share any insights or concerns
you have regarding the topic of this newsletter or any other topic relating
to management skills. Please e-mail
them to me. Our interactions have been invaluable. Let's keep
the conversation going.
A Good, Clean Joke (or, at least a clean one)
Advice from a San Diego father who has identified 35 truths he learned
from his children:
1. There is no such thing as childproofing your house.
2. If you spray hair spray on dust bunnies and run over them with roller
blades, they can ignite.
3. A 4-year-old's voice is louder than 200 adults in a crowded restaurant.
4. If you hook a dog leash over a ceiling fan, the motor is not strong
enough to rotate a 42-pound boy wearing pound puppy underwear and a Superman
cape.
5. It is strong enough, however, to spread paint on all four walls
of a 20' x 20' room.
6. Baseballs make marks on ceilings.
7. When using the ceiling fan as a bat, you have to throw the ball
up several times before you get a hit.
8. You should not throw baseballs up when the ceiling fan is on.
9. A ceiling fan can hit a baseball a long ways.
10. The glass in windows (even double pane) doesn't stop a baseball
hit by a ceiling fan.
11. When you hear the toilet flush and the words "uh-oh," it is already
too late.
12. Brake fluid mixed with Clorox makes smoke--lots of it.
13. A 6 year-old boy can start a fire with a flint rock even though
a 60-year old man says it can only be done in the movies.
14. A magnifying glass can start a fire even on an overcast day.
15. If you use a waterbed as a home plate while wearing baseball shoes,
it does not leak. It explodes.
16. A king-size waterbed holds enough water to fill a 2,000 sq. ft.
house almost 4 inches deep.
17. Legos will pass through the digestive tract of a 4-year-old.
18. Duplos will not.
19. Play-Doh and microwave ovens should never be used in the same sentence.
20. Super Glue is forever.
21. MacGyver can teach us many things we don't want to know.
22. So can Tarzan.
23. No matter how much Jell-O you put in the pool, you still can't
walk on water.
24. Pool filters do not like Jell-O.
25. VCRs do not eject PB&J sandwiches, even though TV commercials
show they do.
26. Garbage bags do not make good parachutes.
27. Marbles in gas tanks make lots of noise when driving.
28. You probably don't want to know what that odor is.
29. Always look in the oven before you turn it on.
30. Plastic toys do not like ovens.
31. The fire department in San Diego has at least a 5-minute response.
32. The spin cycle on the washing machine does not make earthworms
dizzy.
33. It will, however, make cats dizzy.
34. Cats throw up twice their body weight when dizzy.
35. A good sense of humor will get you through most problems in life.
(....unfortunately, mostly in retrospect)
