write a discussion (th)

from S. Leas (1982). Leadership & Conflict. Nashville: Abingdon Press. (63-86). V Surfacing Submerged Conflict Perhaps as damaging to an organization’s life as blatant fighting and contention is covert, underground dissention. Rumor, hidden activities, talking people or groups “behind their backs,” and work that is at cross-purposes are all symptoms of such unhealthy strife. In this situation the leader’s skills and wisdom are profoundly necessary. A leader who is uncomfortable with dissention, who is unable to encourage others to express their differences, who negatively judges those who do surface disagreements is going to cause even more organizational difficulty. As I was writing this chapter I got a phone call from a bishop about a situation in a church where the vestry (church governing body) asked for the pastor’s resignation after eight months of his ministry. U had spoken with the pastor by phone on about six occasions over the last two months. I learned from him and the bishop that the pastor had had several negative and uncomfortable experiences with some of the people in the congregation. On one occasion he suggested that it would not be a good idea for one particular couple to get married. He based this on some testing that he had done with them in premarital counseling. Also, he had not done certain parts of his work and had had a rather vigorous disagreement with the organist which ended with her resignation. To hear the story from the bishop and from the pastor, the people in this congregation who are uncomfortable with the pastor had taken their grievances to one another rather than speaking dire ctly to him. Their dissatisfaction led, after eight months, to a vestry meeting to which the pastor was not invited and then to the senior warden (chairperson of the vestry) requesting the pastor to resign. When the pastor refused to resign, the bishop was asked to come to a vestry meeting. At that meeting the pastor was asked to leave the meeting and the vestry submitted their complaints to the bishop, hoping he would join them in their assessment that this was the wrong priest for their congregation. The process used to manage conflict at this church is very common in organizations. The people did not tell those whom with they were dissatisfied what their problems were. Indeed, this program was continued when the vestry and bishop asked the priest to leave. So the problems were not dealt with. Further, the leadership committee of the congregation is not trying to make a decision for the congregation without involving the larger group in any way in that decision. What is likely to happen if the pastor resigns (especially if he lets it be known to those who support him that he was railroaded out of the job) is that those who didn’t know what was happening would be angry. They were not given a chance to have a say in the decision, and the organization will be left with a new conflict between those who felt something was put over on them and those who felt they had to make a responsible leadership decision for the congregation. One of the things that is being said in that congregation is, “If we include others in the conversation, if we tell them what is going on and what our dissatisfactions are, it will increase the conflict: it may cause new conflicts that do not presently exist.” That reasoning puts the vestry in a no-win situation because they will have the conflict if they get from the bishop what they want (i.e. pressure on the pastor to resign), an d the pastor’s supporters perceive that they have had no opportunity to defend him or hear the facts. On the other hand, if the vestry gets what they don’t want (a recommendation for the pastor to stay) they have no experience with each other in addressing and working through difficulties. Much of the literature on conflict management is about this problem of not surfacing directly the organization’s difficulties and describes the need for confrontation as a way to combat it. What is meant by confrontation in behavioral science literature is not what the word sounds like. The word sounds like you are licensing the people in the orga nization to attack one another. “Lets have a confrontation meeting,” has the ring of “let’s get those dirty so and so’s and put them in their place”. This is not what is meant by confrontation. Invitation In order to avoid raising fears by such confrontation labels, I use the word invitation, or acknowledgement. Those word s affirm the fact that differences are perceived by the various parties to the conflict, yet movement is towards seeking solutions, calling the others closer in order to work through differences, naming the difficulties, and encouraging the othe rs to stay in the process of seeking jointly acceptable outcomes. Encouraging the others to join with you in dealing with the conflict and encouraging the others to stay with you in the process is perhaps the single most important conflict management skill one can use. Mostly we are dealing with the Leadershi p and Conflict Su rfacing Submer ged Con flict issues of fear at th is p oint, but s ubordi nancy issues pr esent as wel l. With re gard to fear, it i s im portan t to rem ember tha t as a person’s perc ept ion of pow erless ness incre ases, t he lik eli hood of vio lence or bi zarre be havior incre ases.

Those pers ons w ho perce ive them selves t o be pow erl ess to affe ct by ot her m eans what is ha pp ening are m ost lik ely to stri ke ou t a gainst others i n destruc tiv e w ays. If I am unable to get w hat I want by rat ional and fair m eans, then I a m likely to giv e up (Sel igman’s helples sness ide a) or I am likely to strike o ut a gainst w hat I perce ive to b e causi ng t he pain, ho lding me bac k, or frus trati ng m e in so me w ay. Note th at a great er inci dent of de pression a nd v iolence is am ong alien ated pow erless per sons i n society tha n am ong th ose w ho have op port unities to exert cha nge and in fluen ce o n the sy stem . In my ow n exper iences t he o nly tim e I have struck any one has be en w hen I perce ived myself to be pow erl ess t o ha ve a n effect on t hem by rationa l com municati on pat terns. It was w hen I felt po werl ess tha t I ac ted wi th bel lic osi ty. This kn owle dge s hould h elp the lead er in co nfli ct situ ati ons . If t he lea der is awar e that i ncre asing t he abi lity of those wit h whom she is i n confli ct t o use rati on al a nd fair means will i mprove their co nfli ct manage ment skills a nd low er t heir le vels of fe ar a nd frus trati on , th en she ca n see t hat encouragi ng the oth er to stay in the proc ess is li kely to be hel pful in deali ng w ith the tens ion as well. To ill ustra te t his point further, I was recently worki ng with a staff where a great dea l of friction had deve loped b etw een tw o seco nd-l evel st aff persons alm ost i mmediate ly after t he second was hired. Al had been on the staff for six years and B ob ha d j ust c ome on bo ard.

Al felt t hat B ob w as sc hem ing w ith the boss t o m ake the ins titution in to an im person al, le galisti c b urea ucracy . Bo b perce ived A l to be se lf-cen tered, n ot w anting to l earn a nythin g, a nd st uck in o ut- modeled a nd ineffici ent pa tterns of w ork. Bot h A l and Bob sp ok e w ith me about the c onfl ict. A s it hap pened Bob w as m ore thre ate ned by the confli ct than was Al. I enc oura ged Al to go to Bo b a nd i nvite him to talk abo ut the pro blem s that they w ere ha vin g. Wh en Bob go t be lligeren t an d c alle d A l nam es, A l did no t respon d to the d eprec ations (no n-rew ard, ex tinct ion) but as ked if they could name sp ecifically wh at wa s h urting th eir relation ship (in vitation ). Wh en, on th e occas ion, Bob abrupt ly left he m eeting saying, “this is hopel ess,” Al waite d two day s an d a gain w hen to Bo b’s office req uesti ng t hat they explore the reasons for the dis com fort be tw een them , assu ming tha t e ach ha d c ontrib uted t o the diffic ulty , a nd it w as no t all o ne pers on’s faul t. T his ex plorat ion w as very diffic ult for both of th em . Al w as oft en disc oura ged and perc eived Bob to be int erperso nal ly incom peten t, hi gh stru ng , and co nsp iratori al. Sev eral tim es Al said t o me, “I don’t t hink it ’s worth it. Noth ing will c ome of this. I a m wasting my tim e.” But A l hu ng in t here. Bo b on t he ot her h and, was afraid t hat he w ould lose h is new job. H e w as ut terly perp lex ed by the a dvice hw w as gett ing t o le vel with th e ot her person a nd b y the regul ar inv ita tions t o attem pt to work throu gh the pr obl em s, which on the surface ca me to littl e, Bob began t o feel secure eno ugh to s tay with t he pr ocess of see king so lut ions to prob lem s rath er th an avo iding them , run ning fro m uncom fortable m eetin g, or atta cking A l by cal ling him names. A fter a time they we re able to wo rk ra ther we ll to gether. When I recom mend this pro cess to l eaders , they are oft en no np lusse d by the sug gestio n. A fter al l, the ot her perso n starte d i t, or h e or s he has done m ore dam age than t he pers on w ith w hom I am talk ing, or he or she w on’t be ab le t o han dle suc h an in vitat ion and w ill, ine vitably , use su ch a show of w hat m ay be perce ived t o be w eakness aga inst the on e w ho is do ing th e i nvi ting.

In fact, a ll these outc om es are possi ble. Howe ver, thes e disast ers are less proba ble by ini tia ting t he action t han by avo iding it or fight ing. B ut even m ore i mportan t than this is fact is t he rea lity that you are t he only on e t hat y ou h ave ch arg e of in any situation. You can not con trol the ot her perso n; yo u can not get hi m or her to do wh at you want (wh ether or not th at person sho uld be tak ing the in vitat ion). Th e only perso n over w hom you ha ve any control ov er is y ourself, and if you wan t to dea l with th e confl ict, you will have to t ake the in vitatio n.

If the other pers on tak es th e in vitation, y ou are luc ky. If the o ther p erson do esn’t ta ke the inv ita tion , yo u bet ter do so. Making Contact The sec ond t hing that you need t o cons ider whe n you are invit ing the oth er to j oin you is “m aking co nta ct.” H erm an and K orenlc h ta lk a bout c ontact in this way : When two pe opl e are in c ont act , they are really seei ng, heari ng, a nd experie ncing each other and what is goi ng on ri gh t here , righ t now.

When you ar e in good cont act wi th anot her person, the re are m inimum int erferenc es with y ou se nsi ng proc ess. Wh en you are no t in go od co ntact , you r sen ses are b eing int erfered w ith –y ou are w orry ing, t hinking of so methin g ot her t han what’s go ing on right here and now , making assum ptio ns in your mind abo ut wha t the effects of y our words will be o n th e ot her person, a nd so on. Wh en y our mind is preoccu pie d, of co urse, it is un likely th at y ou are Leadershi p and Conflict Su rfacing Submer ged Con flict really a ble to use your ey es and ear s, to experie nce what is rea lly hap pening in your im mediate si tua tion.

(1 ) What happe ns when we a re not making cont act wi th ea ch other is int ellect ualiz ing, p laying “ ain’t i t awful ,” or self-neu trali zing. Wh en on e is int ellect ua lizi ng he is gen eraliz ing or abs tracti ng rather tha n talking specifica lly abo ut this situ ati on and the re lat ionships invol ved. Whe n a person is generalizing , he ta lks of b road ca tegori es of situa tio ns rather t han what is hap pening ri ght n ow. “What d o you think a perso n should do w hen his boss does n’t give him the reso urces h e nee ds to do the w ork?” T hat is genera liz ing. Are y ou ta lking about your self ? By “resources ” d o you m ean money or staff ? What work is it t hat you wa nt t o accom plish? O ne of th e bes t cl ues t o hel p you assess whet her contac t is being m ade is whet her or not there is e ye contac t. Often t he pers on wh o is g eneraliz ing wi ll loo k at the flo or, at the cei ling, or off int o sp ace rat her th an look at the other pers on. “Ain’t it awfu l” is l isting co mplaints wi th out allowi ng op port unity fo r serious dis cussion as t o w hat to do about any of t hem . Sel f-ne utra lizati on is wher e the indi vidual m akes a criti cal c omment abo ut a nother and t hen mitig ate i ts p ower by try ing to b e fair or acc urate , perha ps in ord er to avoid c onflic t or hur ting the ot her person’s fee lin gs. “ I’m not sure y ou’re d oing a v ery goo d jo b of i nhab iting devel opers form buy ing u p our lan d in the to wnship ,” on e of the vo ters said to a plannin g com mittee member the o ther day , “but it must be terri bly dif ficul t to d o th at. Th ose de velopers are really sm art; they ’ve g ot a lot of staff to hel p the m, and t here are s o many of them that is m ust be im possible for y ou to kee p trac k of all th at is goi ng on.

” here t he person says what s he fee ls a nd y et fai ls to ac hieve conta ct becaus e she softens t he b low of the crit ique by “und erstandi ng the c ircum stances.

” So she is not he lping t he ot her m ake con tact w ith what sh e is ac tua lly thinki ng or fe eli ng. Often self-ne utrali zat ion is an at tem pt to incre ase em pathy towards t he oth er. Be ing e mpathe tic means that you are a ware of what th e li kely cons equen ces of y our beh avior will be and ha ve so me idea of what ot her peo ple’s feeli ngs m ight be “standi ng i n those s hoes”. H owever, m y em pathy shou ld no t interfere w ith m y expressi on of myself. I can em pathiz e with y our pai n, a nd I c an share m y conc erns w ith out neutral izing t hem . For exam ple, “I am angry th at you did no t vot e a gainst the zone vari ance for t he ne w ho usin g dev elopm ent. You must hav e so me feelin gs in th is situ atio n as well, will y ou te ll me what they are ?” Structuring a nd inter action It is h elpf ul when invit ing the ot her to dea l wit h the co nflic t y ou are facin g to tak e som e initi ative to stru cture the proces s of the c onversati on or int eract ion. T his is b est do ne if it is a jo int effort. In fa ct, it can be the first move you make to ward joi nt probl em solvi ng. If y ou are a ble to rea ch agreem ent on how you are going to app roach you r di fficulties, you are go ing to in crease the probabi lity of reaching agre ement about t he diffi cul ties them selves. This ca n be one of t hose s mall success es tha t le ads the way to furt her su ccesses i n worki ng thro ug h t he probl em . Here is a proc ess th at m any hav e fo un d t o be hel pful : First agree o n the g uidelin es or grou nd r ules y ou wi ll use to determ ine whe ther the co nfli ct ta ctics you are usin g are fair.

I li ke the gu idelines given by D avid Luecke in The Rel ations hip Man ual: 1.

No on e is a llowed t o define t he si tuati on for t he other. Ea ch per son express es o nly his or her view poi nt. 2.

Space is a lwa ys give n for an al ternati ve point of vi ew. 3.

Resp on d t o the sta tem ent of the other befo re ex pressin g your ow n view. 4.

It is OK to dis agree.

You ca n e njoy a c onversat ion wit hout com ing t o an agreem ent. You only nee d to hear , understand, and acce pt what t he oth er p erson has sai d as his or her po int of view . Anot her set of gui delin es f or struc turi ng the cont ext o f the confli ct are thos e d elineated by G eorge Bach (2): 1.

Statem ents are rati ona l and real istic , n ot c ontr ived and insi ncere, or manipul ative . 2.

Statem ents are fair; t he othe r can c ope wit h them and int egrat e them and respon d; they are no t de vast ati ng or im pai ring t o the o ther’s motivati on and ca pac ity to cont inue. 3.

Genui ne fe eli ngs are s hare d; p ersons are no t d etached/w ithdraw n for taking co ncern . 4.

Each is wi lling to ac kn owled ge a s hare in co nfli ct and its res olution means tha t on e d oes not blame outsi de s ources or th e o ther a lone. 5.

Hu mor produ ces rel ief, no t sarcasm , put downs, or h umiliat ion. 6.

Feedb ack is acc urate and rele vant, not dis tort ed or full of attri butio ns. Leadershi p and Conflict Su rfacing Submer ged Con flict 7.

Statem ents are clear a nd c ont ain concre te de tai ls, not vague a nd gen eral. 8.

Statem ents are relat ed to the here and n ow, so methin g tha t you c an do s omething abo ut. 9.

Each party is willi ng to be flex ibl e and open t o cha nge. Struct urin g t he in terac tion also m eans that the two of y ou will talk a bout what t he liter al st eps wi ll be i n the de velopm ent of t he c onversa tion.

This will see m awkward the first t ime tha t you d o it (an d the se cond an d the third t ime). However, what you are doing by agre eing on the pr obl em -solvi ng process is hel ping e very one i nvolved feel more in con trol a nd m ore pow erful , and he nce less l ikely to act crazy (aga in, there are no guara ntees here, but we ar e expl oring processes that can or m ay help). Here is a process that often works (fro m The Rel ationship Ma nu al): A.

Ident ify one is sue t hat seem s im portant t o work on a t a time. B. Take t urns re stati ng w hat you eac h wan t with resp ect to th e issu e and wh at i s mo st important to yo u. C. One of y ou offers a “ summary statem ent” of w hat you bot h hav e said and t hen asks, “ Is this the way you s ee i t?” D.

The other a grees wit h the s ummary statem ent or revise s it or offers additi onal inf orm ation and anot her “ summ ary state ment” a gain chec king it o ut. Th is c ontinu es unt il y ou agre e on a sum mary statem ent. E. Who e ver has the next turn now offers a prop osal : I w ill be w illing to… if y ou w oul d be w illing to … F. The ot her no w respon ds to the offer.

If y ou resp on d by acc eptin g the offers as state d, g o dire ctly to th e ne xt ste p; if no t, respon d by offering a m odifi catio n or a cou nter proposa l, th e ot her respon ds with furt her modificat ions or ano ther cou nterpro posal un til a prop osal is a ccep ted . G.

Who ever has the next turn s ummarizes what you have agreed upon, em phasiz ing what e ach is get ting in a pos itive w ay. The other responds wit h agreem ent (or clarif icat ion if ne eded) a nd s uggests doi ng som ethi ng to sh are th e goo d feel ings of w orking t hrou gh y our differences. Probl em Defi nitions The ot her t hing to b e aw are of as y ou move tow ards t he oth er in co nfli ct is the im porta nce of t he wa y problem s or issues are def ines in t he first plac e. We blo ck o ursel ves fro m seein g op tions a nd possib ilities beca use of t he w ay w e descri be w hat w e are seei ng or e xper iencin g. B andler and G rindler (1) poi nt to three pr oblem s that regul arly occur as individu als t ry to ex plain th e wo rds – or descri be what is the m atter at t he present tim e and how it might be correct ed.

Ban dler and G rinder’s t hree c ategor ies are:

generaliza tion, d eleti on , a nd dist orti on. General ization is the pro blem of describing som ethin g in a w ay that det aches t he e xperi ence from the spec ific eve nt and le ads one t o repr esent more of th e e xperience in the descrip tio n tha n is act ual ly in c ase. I t is usefu l to generali ze t hat sharp kni ves can c ut you, but it is not t he case t hat a ll kni ves are sharp an d th erefore da nger ous (as is the case with a but ter knife). Ge neral ization as pro blem descript ions oft en start : “You alw ays…,” or “Every body thinks…,” or “ People… ” (as in “ People are out to get m e!” or “ Peop le w ould l ike to s ee you g et another jo b”). S ometim es the general ization is a vag ue des cripti on of somethin g t hat ha ppe ned: “ when w e got to t he m eetin g, w e w ere su rprised a nd fright ene d by the presi dent’s un prov ok ed att ack.” “ Unprov oked att ack” do esn’t specify very much. If what exact ly happ ened were d escribe d, it m ight help every one get a be tter gr ip on th e who le si tua tio n a nd its meaning : “when we go t to t he m eeting, we were surprise d by t he pres ide nt’s statem ent that Jim had forgot ten t o puc k h im up and he ha d to w alk to the meetin g.” Even if t he presid ent’s sta tem ent had th e ton e of at tack, i t is stil l m ore easily dealt wi th by bei ng s pecific . “ The pres ident w as re d i n the fa ce and s houted a t M ary that he was angry at J im because he had not bee n pic ked up.” T his te lls t he w hol e story rather t han leavi ng t o one’s imaginat ion what might have happe ned or what the meaning of the events m ight be. So metimes the gen eral ization is o ne t hat attri butes more meanin g to t he situa tion t han is actual ly there. “ My boss doesn’t appreci ate m y work” is a gen erali zatio n tha t puts e veryone in a d ifficul t sit uatio n for pro blem solv ing. A more specific descri pti on of the sit uatio n might b e: “ My boss do esn’t; c ome dow n t o my office an d tal k fro m tim e to tim e, “ or “My boss w as un happy w ith the w ay I han dled t he F ourt h Stree t Proje ct.” The se cond kind of ina ppr opria te pro blem definit ions is w hat Ba nd ler and Gri nder call “ deletion”.

Deleti on is se lect ively pay ing a tte ntion t o the certa in Leadershi p and Conflict Su rfacing Submer ged Con flict dim ensions of experi ences a nd ex clud ing oth ers. So metim es this is done in q uite an o bvious w ay. “You nev er pla n ah ead ” is a pro blem descripti on that ignore s the fa ct tha t the perso n does pla n m eals, d oes m anage m oney , do es pl an at w ork, but does no t p lan w hat to do on th e w eekends. A more subtl e ki nd of d eletion is descri bing part of t he ex perie nce but del eting the re st as in , “I’m conf used .” W hen w hat is m ean t is, “ I’m confuse d by To m’s request for more feed back after he tol d me he did n’t want to talk a bout his beh avior.” The first st atem ent im plies th at the sp eaker is genera lly confus ed, conf used a bout ev ery thing.

The seco nd giv es full a ppreci ati on t o the p art of one’s experie nce that is causing the diffic ulty.

Final ly, so me prob lem defin itions are d istorted . D istort ion im plies som e kin d of fin ality that may in fact n ot be there. O ften w hat is be ing de scribe d is a process, b ut t he proc ess is describ ed as if it w ere a con clusio n or co mplete d actu ality. Th us Band ler and Gri nder say th e statem ent, “I regret m y dec ision to return home,” is a dist orti on, im ply ing t hat the decis ion to re tur n ho me is fina l. Most decisi ons can be c hanged. Regr etti ng a de cision does no t allow the possi bil ity t hat de ciding is an ongoing process. A more accur ate descr iption is, “ I regret th at I am decidin g to return hom e.” A noth er ill ustrati on t he gi ve is, “ I am surprised at her resi sta nce to me,” whic h is a d istor tio n of, “ I am surprised tha t she is resist ing me.” The f orm er sentenc e implies t hat resistance is final a nd forever, the la tter tha t res istance is an ongoing dec ision tha t might be cha nge d in the f uture. Beca use of these problem s in t he initial st ages of c onfron tation o r inv ita tion , it is important that pro blem statem ents be fram ed in way s that hel p to clarify rat her than obfusc ate the diffic ulties we are try ing to dea l wi th. Wit h the more specific s put into the statem ent t he bet ter. Ofte n prob lem state ments ta ke this form , Who is doi ng or not d oing w hat to w hom ? This part icula r form helps the pro blem definer tel l as possib le, espe cially if it m eets the cri teria : 1.

It descri bes w hat is pr ob lem atic , w hat is t he differe nce betw een w hat is and what is the desire d st ate. It isn’t very helpf ul to have an acc ura te descri pti on of w hat is if i t is no t som ethi ng y ou w ant to do som ethi ng about. 2.

The sta tem ent is specifi c a nd descript ive, lett ing ev ery one kn ow w hat hap pened, w hat is happ ening, or w hat ne eds to be changed. 3.

The st atem ent is n ot a n attri but ion, tha t is, a g uess a bout what the other int ends, or t hinks, or means by a giv en b ehavior or sta tem ent. “ She is try ing to w reck t his org anizat ion” is us ual ly an attribut ion, or m ind readi ng, a gue ss at wha t the other’s motive s are. 4.

Problem statem ents shoul dn ’t be pu tdow ns. Putdow ns a re different fro m descri pti ons in that their i nten tio n is to add pain to an alrea dy diffi cult situa tion. 5.

Problem statem ents describ e so methin g tha t on e ca n do som ethin g abo ut. It is no t a probl em statem ent to de scribe som ething t o w hich n o one ca n resp ond, suc h as, “The prob lem is tha t it sn ow s in A laska .” T his is not som ethi ng t hat a nyone can d o any thing a bout a nd is, theref ore, n ot a worka ble sta tem ent. So metim es, worka ble prob lems may be dis cov ered by tal king a bout, and exp lori ng a n on-w orka ble prob lem , e.g. the st atem ent, “John is t oo big f or tha t seat” is n ot w orka ble, bu t the sta tem ent, “ That seat is t oo sm all for Joh n,” m ay be wo rkable. Ch anging John ’s si ze m ay not be wit hin t he real m of possib ility, but ch anging con tours of se ats m ay be. A useful tec hniq ue f or ge nerati ng w orkable pro blem statem ents is f or me and the pe rson w ith w hom I have the disagreem ent t o make a list o f w orkable prob lem s rath er tha n to try to id entify just one tha t we c an a gree on. I f we co me up w ith a l ist of pro blems, w e are m ore likely to fi nd som e that wi ll su cce ed. Further, w e don’t get stu ck in a presum pti on tha t m y definit ion of the prob lem is bet ter t han y our defi nit ion. A list of pr obl em s acknow ledges tha t there are m any dim ensions t o the pr ob lem and tha t work ing on e asp ect of th e pro blem will not “solve” the w hol e t hing. It will on ly gi ve us a s tart in to a c omplex sit uation. Two oth er ad vanta ges t o listing prob lem s are tha t the sam e prob lem can be st ate d in different ways su ggest ing d ifferent rol es t hat the i ndividu al can take in alle viati ng t he difficu lty , an d differen t pr ocesses by w hich t he pro blem might be dea lt wit h ca n be su gges ted. To il lustra te, let’s lo ok at a situ ati on and som e of the w orka ble prob lem s that may be con tained in it. The 4-H rents a com munity bu ild ing ow ned by the ci ty to carry out a nutri tion pro gram . The d irector of t he c omm unity bu ildin g and the 4-H agen t g et int o a confli ct over where, when, and how the trai ning in can ning will be do ne. The direc tor doesn’t al low the 4-H age nt to have keys to the building . The 4-H age nt did not pu t away the ute nsils used in the ki tch en o n thr ee occas ions. The 4-H age nt was unabl e to put t hese ute nsils aw ay on these occasi ons beca use the p erson w ith he key w as no t in the bui lding. The 4-H age nt w ants to have t he bu ildin g open in th e eve ning for can ning training sessions. Leadershi p and Conflict Su rfacing Submer ged Con flict The dire ctor does no t have m oney in th e bu dge t for hir ing superv isor y and cust odial s taff for evenin g u se of t he bu ilding . The dire ctor does no t ha ve an alt erna tive means of fund ing su perv isor y and cust od ial s taff for th e e vening use of the building. The 4-H ag ent d oes no t have alt erna tiv e means of s taffing s uper visory and cust odial s taff for evenin g u se of t he bu ilding . This list illustrates that t he prob lem s are not all one-sided; each statem ent has prob lem atic el em ent on b oth side s. It als o ill ustrat es the fact that a list of pr ob lems can sugge st ide as ab ou t the w ay prob lem s can be a ppro ach ed.

For exa mple, when the 4- H agent c omplains about not bei ng abl e to work at nig ht, the d irector in dicat es her perce ptions of what int erferes with these work ho urs. Th is su gges ts t o bot h of t hem that alter native a pproac hed to the prob lem can he lp the m address it. When to Esca lat e Conflic t Up to t his p oint in th e ch apter I have bee n descri bin g the im portan ce of lim ited esca latio n, or bri ng prob lem s up w hen t hey occur a nd hel ping peo ple in the gro up or orga niz ation address th eir diffic ulties.

However, it is not alw ays appr opri ate t o esca lat e co nflic t. A nu mber of factors shou ld be tak en i nto account, as you c onsi der m oving toward c onfli ct esca lat ion. Newness . T he first th ing t o cons ider is h ow new th e rel ations hips are in the co nflic t setting.

Pe op le w ho are just g etting ac qua inted with one oth er do n’t manage differences w ell. T hey te nd to drop aw ay very qui ckly, u nles s they have hig h sta kes in the ou tcom e of the c onfl ict. I have le arne d thro ug h many years of teac hing co urses in confl ict managem ent tha t it is not a go od idea to get a new grou p i nto co nflic t e xper iences t oo e arly . The peo ple ar e jus t ge tting acq uai nted, and t hey h ave plenty of anxi ety ab ou t wh at t hese rela tions are goi ng to be like wi thou t ad ding the an xiety o f co nflict. So in th e beggi ng of a g roup sessi on I start with hig hly struct ured and safe e xperien ces. Th is helps peo ple to ge t to kn ow on e an oth er an d h elps th em devel op tr ust a nd a sense of sec urity in the grou p, wh ich will m ake lat er risk-tak ing more profita ble. Ski lls an d experien ce. I am also concer ned a bout the ability of pe op le to handl e them selves in a c onfl ict.

The less s killed and less experie nced peopl e are in devel oping an d kee ping relat ionshi ps t he m ore diffic ult it will be for th em to manage c onf lict. T his also true a bout the issues wit h which they are deali ng; t he less t hey kn ow abo ut the s ubj ect , the m ore c onfl ict is likely to ge t out of hand . Earlier I menti oned t he im pact of p owerlessn ess and co nfli ct. The less exp erie nce, sk ill, and kn owl edg e, t he m ore powerl ess th e perso n will feel. Th us, the i nvita tion to dea l with issues must be much more cau tious and gen tly ini tia ted with no vic es than w ith perso ns w ho are “old han ds”.

Stru cture . T his is als o a crit ical el em ent. The m ore structure there is the more the perception of safety. The less st ructure t here is the m ore confusion and possi bil ity of dis com fort. If the or gan ization you are w ith has str uctures a nd process es for prob lem -solvi ng a nd confli ct managem ent, th ey sho uld be us ed. If not , they can easily be creat ed on an ad hoc basis as the confli ct de velops.

This creati on of structure w ill a dd com pone nts of security to com pensate for the com ponents of risk th at c ome w ith the confli ct s itu ati on. T o illustra te t his, thi nk abo ut a confl ict where no a uthority or ag reed-o n pro blem-solvin g pr ocess e xists to h elp de al w ith the s ituation. For ex am ple, a sq uabb le betw een n eighb ors over who g ets t he f ruit form the l imbs of a tree tha t hangs o ver the prop erty lin e c oul d create a m ore anxie ty than a confli ct w ith an au to mechanic. Wh en yo u kn ow you can go t o the service re presentat ive or to the ser vice dep artm ent m anager if you do n ot get satisfac tion with th e mech ani c, y ou are lik ely to e xpe rienc e less traum a than when you ha ve no gui delines on h ow to go abo ut it than when i t is a so-called free-for-all. Avai lable time . As the tim e t o work the pr obl em decreas es, the int ensity of the co nfli ct increases . It will be t o th e adv antage of every one t o all ocate am ple tim e to work t hrou gh t he iss ue, b ut it is a lso a goo d ess ential t o esta blish a tim e when t he ne cessary decisi ons are to be made. Ti me pressure increases anxiety and the am ount of fear pres ent in the sit uati on.

If y ou want to increa se press ure tow ards dec ision-m aking, a com mon strat egy is to set a short dea dline. Other factors that are li kely to make a difference in the way people han dle confl ict are:

Degree of rol e cl ari ty. This pro blem occu rs w hen there is dis agre ement as to w ho sh oul d be m aking w hat de cis ions bas ed on trad ition al assumptio ns abo ut w ho has the resp onsi bility for t hos e de cisi ons . T his is be ing e xperi enced most profoun dly in marriages. Tradi tio nal role differe ntiati on indic ates that i t is the hus band w ho s hould m ake dec isio ns a bout large purchases an d t he w ife w ho mak es t he deci sion s abo ut fo od , cl othing , an d day-t o-day maintenan ce it em s. These ass umptio ns ab ou t w ho m akes w hat de cisi ons a re bei ng c halleng ed i n some modern marriages a nd change d i n others. The se changes i ncrease t he diffic ulty in making dec isions a nd managi ng confli ct bec ause th e trad ition al rules do not apply . Th e gre ater the confu sion in un ders tan ding ab ou t who s hould make w hat decisio ns, the gr eater the d iffic ulty in m anagi ng the confl ict. Leadershi p and Conflict Su rfacing Submer ged Con flict Resour ce disp arity . This is also a fact or i n co nfli ct m anag ement. Bo th tan gible an d intang ibl e res ource dis parity are fac tors (t his lan guage is t hat of John Sc anz oni and Max imilian Szi novacz in Fa mily Decision -Ma king ). Tan gible resource disp arity has to d o with the diff erenc es tha t can be m easured, such as the am ount of educ ation t he p arties ha ve, j ob sta tus, or in com e. Intan gible resource dispa rity has to do with se lf-est eem. Resourc e disp arity rel ates ba ck to tha t ques tion of powerlessn ess th at we s poke of e arlie r. The m ore I perceive myself to ha ve the fewer re sources t o deal with t he si tuati on, the m ore hel pless, powerless, or violent I am likely to be . (If I can get what I want by logical arg ument, perhaps I can at tack you , overl y or cov ertly, o r at least pu nish you eve n th ou gh I may not be a ble t o acc om plish m y goal.) O ften resourc e disp arity is irrele van t to the a ctual pro blem being a ddressed. N onethe less, t he as socia tions peo ple ha ve o f others in their roles m ay affect th eir self-esteem and serio usly handi cap or mar the abi lity of the part ies t o sta y wi th and wo rk throug h the diffic ulties the y are faci ng.

Third p arties, au die nces . Re search on t he effect of outsi ders on c onfl ict had bee n rep orted by Ru bin and Brow n (3). G eneral ly, audi ences (w het her th ey are inv ite d to observe as m ediators or w hether th ey ju st hap pen to be prese nt) hav e a salu tary effect on confl ict. Whe re the par ties are aw are that they are observ ed by neutra l, impractica l, and, pre sumably , o bjecti ve ou tsid ers, th ey te nd to tem per th eir b ehavior to fi t the preva iling n orms regardin g ap pro priat e beh avior in c onfli ct. O ne e xpe cta tion t o this is w hen t he au die nce is on y our “team.” For exam ple, la bor /managem ent disput es are often m ade more diffic ult beca use the negotia tors are more conc erne d wi th the pe rcept ions t hey are giving to those they represent than with th e at tempt to reac h an agr eem ent with th eir count erparts in t he barga ining. T his makes com promise difficu lt. A noth er exp ect ati on is hen th e a udie nce is l ooking for blood a nd rev eling in th e diffic ulties that t he co nfli cted part ies are experi encing. It is not unusual f or new spapers a nd te lev ision reporters t o bait pro tagonists in such a w ay that th eir respons es make “ a goo d story ”. This of course, is n ot he lpfu l for managin g differences, and the role of the reporter as im partial o bserver (w hich c an be v ery salutary) is for saken. Mut uality . Sc anz oni als o talks abou t what he ca lls “m utuality ” a s a cruci al fac tor in t he m anage ment of differences . Mu tuality com es out of the p ast exp erie nces of bot h par ties.

It has t o do with p ast rel atio nsh ips b etween t hem , and t he ass essm ent that they now make conc ernin g h ow coop erat ive , trustwort hy, fair, or e mpathet ic eac h is to the o ther’s concerns.

If one’s assessm ent of the other is th at he or she h as not be en coopera tive or trustw ort hy, the n, of c ours e, the current diffic ulties w ill be com plica ted by past ex perie nces . This d oes n ot mean that agree ment is im possi ble , only that m ore stipul ati ons , more guarant ees, m ore “ inspect ions”, as in the case of Russia and the Unit ed States, are nee ded bef ore one will be lieve tha t the other can be trust ed. The le ad er a s model in c onf lic t set ting. The way you are aware of yourself i n conflic t w ill pro foun dly affec t your a bility to m anage y ourself a nd work with o thers in th e midst of a conf lic t. Freud t alked ab out the unconsci ous as a part of th e self of w hich y ou are not fully aware. It was his percepti on t hat bel ow the s urface of full aw areness you are working out a scenario t hat can m ake sense to y our no n-co nsci ou s self b ut no t alw ays to the co nsc ious s elf. Perh aps you hav e a wish y ou want to fu lfill o r you feel gu ilty ab out a n eve nt or an imagined ev ent an d believe, n on-con sciou sly, t hat you must be punished or pay for it. Freudi an thera py w orks on t he pre mise that as you be com e aware of the no n-co nsci ous dram a in w hich y ou perce ive y ourse lf to be an act or, t he scri pt of the dram a loses its pow er to contr ol y ou, an d y ou begin t o w rite a new script . To m Wolfe in The El ectr ic Kool-ai d Ac id Test (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1968) refers to a nother p erson’s choi ces and b ehav iors as “that’s his m ovie”. H e sa id he say s w hat Freud said b efore him , that the in dividua l loo ks at th e w orld an d cons cio usly and no n-c onsc iously assig ns meanin g, ric hness, (or du llness), an d purp ose t o what is ha pp ening . Th is is n ot d ifficu lt fo r us to fat hom at so me immediate ly accessi ble l evels, yet much of what is ha ppe ning is only partia lly ava ila ble to us as in dividua ls, t hought it may be much clearer to others w ho ar e with us. One man w ith w hom I worked for four y ears had be en in pris on so me years before and w as now a com munity org anizer.

When I as ked him w hy he had dec ided t o go “ strai gh t” he sa id that he w as t ired of p laying “cops an d robb ers”. H e knew w hat his “m ovie” had been a nd n ow he w as ch oosi ng another. Perhaps you are aware of othe r dram as or movies that friends ar e play ing o ut: the be autifu l person w ho is nev er ruffled or affronte d by any thin g, the b ig, hard- nose d boss , the de vil’s adv ocate, t he rea list professor.

Eric Berne del ighted many of us w ith his ab ility to cate gori ze a nd gi ve co lorf ul nam es to many of the d ram as, w hich he ca lle d scri pts, gam es, or inju nctio ns, depen ding on the s pecial c ategory of life expressi on he was ide ntifying. So me of these “m ovies”, or “ scripts”, or “ dramas” are so much a part of our c harac ter, so h idden a nd prot ect ed fro m out usual awarene ss, and s o importan t for survi val that we can no t g et c lose to then, let alone cha nge tem , witho ut the help of high ly train ed pers on s in therap eutic se ttings. N one theless, much of wha t we experi ence ca n be c hanged if we bec ome aware of i t and Leadershi p and Conflict Su rfacing Submer ged Con flict subst itute a crazy, destruc tive, or hel pless script for one tha t is life enha nci ng. This is w hat is at the heart of N orm an V ince nt Pe ale’s posi tive thinki ng , W.

Clem ent Ston e’s posi tive mental a ttitude, and Ro bert Sch uller’s possi bility thi nking. T hey reco mmend repla cing a defeatis t scri pt full of en nu i and nausea with a new movi e of h ope and s uccess.

The pr ob lem that m any of us hav e w ith Peale, S tone, and Schull er is t heir posi tive m ovie se ems too unre al –li ke a Disney cartoon –a nd does n’t’ face or affi rm tragedy as a part of t he vic tory of life. R ather, t hey seem to say that trage dy doesn’t exist, t hat w hen it does occ ur, it is a m anifestati on of evi l and s hould be avoi ded, s hunned, denie d, pu t aw ay. A different kind of movie a ffirm s the c onflict and tra gedy of life as p art of what is re al a nd fin ds withi n it op portu nities for em pow erm ent, change, grow th and s timulatio n. Wh at has m ade t he grea t leaders of t he w orld n otable is not the abse nce of co nfli ct or stru gg le fro m the im ple mentati on of th eir lea dershi p—j ust th e op pos ite—gre atness has com e fro m eth w ay they addressed adversity. Who re members the lea ders duri ng t he t imes of qui et and peace ? Few.

Fro m where did t hose we m ost adm ire com e? They ca me, like Gha ndi, from the struggle t o free a ca pti ve nat ion fro m the rul e of another; they ca me, like Roos eve lt, fro m a w ar agai nst ec on om ic depressi on and the att empted tyranny of other nati ons ; they cam e, like Mar garet Sanger, from a war a gainst wo men’s abi lity contr ol what ha pp ens to t heir b odies; and they ca me, like Susa n Anth ony , fro m a war to deny suffrage to wom en. What w as t he movie of San ger, G handi, Roos eve lt, or Anthony ? It was not the m ovie of he lplessn ess, nor w as it the m ovie of anni hilat ion of the enem y. “Well,” y ou say , “that’s all great for G handi a nd San ger, but for me, no way . I’ve neit her the a bility nor th e tem pera ment to in vite confl ict or to stay in it.

I’d rath er be at peac e a nd get al on g w ith everyb od y.” Wh en yo u say t his, are yo u aware of the movie you’r e in ? It’s Dick & Jane Go to U ncle B ob’s Farm . Nothi ng re ally hap pens in this script . In fa ct its essen ce i s the l ack of a ction. T his is no t th e m ovi e I ch oose if I beli eve I have free well, if I be lieve I hav e somethin g to giv e th at makes a differenc e to som eone and th at I h ave som e control over w hat I do. Rece ntly I spo ke w ith a w oman w ho is the n ew dire ctor of a com mun ity acti on agency. She sa id s he wante d to m ake s ignific ant ch anges in the way the program had bee n run—s uch as le tting so me peop le go w ho w ere not p ulling the ir w eigh t, moving t he m ain offi ce, a nd dro ppi ng s ome ineffecti ve program s. The m an w ho used to be the dire ctor of t he a gency is now her sup ervisor. H er recom mended cha nges threa tened him , so he e ncoura ged her t o kee p doing as he had do ne in t hat pos ition . A t first he on ly made recom mendati ons, then he sent strong m emo s threat ening her i f she di dn ’t do as h e said, and fin ally he to ld ot her peopl e that she was i ncom pete nt and m ade up st ories about her. His beha vior was threate ning to t he n ew director. She w as ann oyed, scared, angry and confuse d all a t once. B ut her p icture of herself w as of a pers on with go od ideas w ho list ens to other a nd who sta nds u p to att ach no matter how pet ty, person al, or p eev ish it is.

(N oti ce I said “stands up to att ack ” not “ dishes out the s ame meat she ge ts.”) This i nternal st ance c omes through.

Everybody un dersta nds it -not im mediat ely , not i n th e sam e w ay, not a lways clearly —bu t somehow it is perce ived by superi ors in the orga nizat ion, by her a ntagonis t, a nd by ot her obs ervers t hat she has integr ity (w hic h m eans “ who leness”). It is thro ug h her st rugg le w ith this a dversary that her tru e m ettle is re vea led.

Mos t of the observers co me to respec t her and realize t hat she can “m anage” toug h situa tions. The pow er of this ki nd of le adersh ip is tw ofol d. Part of the power is in the long-term effects it has on the decisi on being m ade—w here the office w ill be, wh o stay s on t he st aff, and wh at the program will be—a nd the other p art of the po wer i s the profou nd effect if has on t he ot hers wh o see a new mo vie an d bel ieve i t could b e m odel fo r them . If th e top leaders of the organi zat ion choose oth er m ovies, th ey bef uddle, c onf use, and a ntago nize, drive people aw ay fro m tak ing respo nsibi lity for th emselves, an d lose th eir i mpact on t he rest of the orga niz ation .