Published on Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007
THAT human relationships are littered with disagreements and conflicts is old news. Again, the fact that clashes are more pronounced in the friction-ridden portals of the workplace is nothing new. Dissent over roles, rights, duties, responsibilities, resource allocation marks a range of interactions between colleagues as well as managers and their subordinates. Neither is executive-level negotiation spared from the ubiquitous element of conflict.
Nonetheless, most minor skirmishes can be effectively settled through compromises and adjustments. But, when the sword of discord strikes an individual's fundamental values, beliefs and goals, it becomes another ballgame altogether.
The deep-rooted conflict is almost intractable; it does not lend itself well to pre-approved, accepted or politically `realistic' methods of resolution. Coercive strategies fail miserably as the disputants refuse to budge from their entrenched positions and there is no solution in sight.
To deal with this complex scenario, conflict scholars, John Burton and Herbert Kelman have developed an alternative approach that is both factual and holistic. Though their `analytical problem solving' technique was conceived in the wholesome context of international conflicts, its `peace-making' proclivity can generate successful results in almost any milieu.
Harnessing the needs theory
As against the previous approaches that ignored the cause of a problem, analytical problem solving is a comprehensive strategy that focuses on pinpointing the fundamental source that perpetuates a conflict. The social-psychological analysis concentrates on determining the degree to which the adversaries' basic human needs are being met. As conflict resolution-expert Bryant Wedge opines, "non-rational human needs, including those especially for recognition and justice, provide a driving force in conflict behaviour and need to be taken into greater account in conflict analysis".
Once this crucial core is unearthed, both the parties work together (with a mediator, of course) to examine mutually satisfactory options that will meet their needs. Therefore, fulfilling the rudimentary essentials holds the key to effective and continuing resolution.
However, it is quite obvious that any arbitrator will emphatically object that building coalition between warring factions is easier said than done.
Therefore, as an opening gambit, a mediator (can be either a manager, executive, neutral team member, other key individuals or even a hired professional) should gather information on the root cause underlying the issue through focussed and direct questioning to each side.
Then, try to get them to participate in a joint discussion targeted at cordial dialogue to reveal hidden behavioural realities dominating the conflict. This will expose inherent and vital unmet needs like a lack of identity, security, equity, autonomy or personal recognition that provokes individual behaviour in defiance of rules. Proceed with caution as ingrained and reciprocal stereotyping or profound distrust can ride roughshod over any attempts for conciliation. Yet, if they are averse to direct communication, the facilitator should separately present their respective views and concerns, even while encouraging `in-person' negotiation.
Armed with the eye-opening insight into the root of the conflict, proceed to exploring options and develop ways to restructure the situation.
Flavouring with an extra tang
Analysis-based problem solving does not merely culminate in containing conflict with congruous agreement. It is a broader concept that focuses on permanently eradicating potential grounds for discord by changing individual perceptions towards each other, thus setting the tone for an absolutely transformed and co-operative relationship.
This integrative approach of troubleshooting can be successfully modified to handle routine and major problems in manufacturing, technical or project-solving situations too. Assessing needs with reliable equations will help in identifying, adjusting and rectifying the areas of an operation or process where problems can crop up in the future.
Nonetheless, most minor skirmishes can be effectively settled through compromises and adjustments. But, when the sword of discord strikes an individual's fundamental values, beliefs and goals, it becomes another ballgame altogether.
The deep-rooted conflict is almost intractable; it does not lend itself well to pre-approved, accepted or politically `realistic' methods of resolution. Coercive strategies fail miserably as the disputants refuse to budge from their entrenched positions and there is no solution in sight.
To deal with this complex scenario, conflict scholars, John Burton and Herbert Kelman have developed an alternative approach that is both factual and holistic. Though their `analytical problem solving' technique was conceived in the wholesome context of international conflicts, its `peace-making' proclivity can generate successful results in almost any milieu.
Harnessing the needs theory
As against the previous approaches that ignored the cause of a problem, analytical problem solving is a comprehensive strategy that focuses on pinpointing the fundamental source that perpetuates a conflict. The social-psychological analysis concentrates on determining the degree to which the adversaries' basic human needs are being met. As conflict resolution-expert Bryant Wedge opines, "non-rational human needs, including those especially for recognition and justice, provide a driving force in conflict behaviour and need to be taken into greater account in conflict analysis".
Once this crucial core is unearthed, both the parties work together (with a mediator, of course) to examine mutually satisfactory options that will meet their needs. Therefore, fulfilling the rudimentary essentials holds the key to effective and continuing resolution.
However, it is quite obvious that any arbitrator will emphatically object that building coalition between warring factions is easier said than done.
Therefore, as an opening gambit, a mediator (can be either a manager, executive, neutral team member, other key individuals or even a hired professional) should gather information on the root cause underlying the issue through focussed and direct questioning to each side.
Then, try to get them to participate in a joint discussion targeted at cordial dialogue to reveal hidden behavioural realities dominating the conflict. This will expose inherent and vital unmet needs like a lack of identity, security, equity, autonomy or personal recognition that provokes individual behaviour in defiance of rules. Proceed with caution as ingrained and reciprocal stereotyping or profound distrust can ride roughshod over any attempts for conciliation. Yet, if they are averse to direct communication, the facilitator should separately present their respective views and concerns, even while encouraging `in-person' negotiation.
Armed with the eye-opening insight into the root of the conflict, proceed to exploring options and develop ways to restructure the situation.
Flavouring with an extra tang
Analysis-based problem solving does not merely culminate in containing conflict with congruous agreement. It is a broader concept that focuses on permanently eradicating potential grounds for discord by changing individual perceptions towards each other, thus setting the tone for an absolutely transformed and co-operative relationship.
This integrative approach of troubleshooting can be successfully modified to handle routine and major problems in manufacturing, technical or project-solving situations too. Assessing needs with reliable equations will help in identifying, adjusting and rectifying the areas of an operation or process where problems can crop up in the future.
PAYAL CHANANIA
No comments:
Post a Comment