Conflict negotiation, Part 2

Most people recognize that direct communication may be the most effective approach to resolving conflict, but are reluctant to address issues head-on. If you do decide to address a conflict, be sure to plan wisely. Create emotional and physical safety by selecting a proper setting for your conversation. Both parties need to agree on a mutually beneficial time and place to meet. Select a quiet venue conducive to conversation and problem-solving. You should be well rested, and the encounter should take place in a private area away from other people, where you’ll be free of interruptions. If desired, a third person can be invited by either side to listen in or mediate.

Goals and ground rules

Be sure to co-create goals and ground rules (i.e., speaking one at a time; addressing one another directly; using a calm, respectful voice; avoiding personal attacks; sticking to objective information, etc.). Also, be sure to test your assumptions since they may be wrong. This can be accomplished by asking clarifying questions, such as: “I’m gathering from our conversation that you’re concerned about my performance. Is that the case?” Or, “I’m inferring from this exchange that you question my intention. Is that correct?” Asking clarifying questions helps clear the air and establish mutual understanding.

Conversations that involve criticism can be stressful, so prepare by being well-hydrated, rested, and as stress-free as possible. Do some deep breathing exercises or yoga stretches before the meeting. When the meeting starts, listen carefully, and show compassion and genuine interest in the other person. Stay focused on your purpose, maintain eye contact, and avoid being judgmental.

I also suggest using evidence-based models for framing conversations that address conflict. Below, I have provided two common workplace scenarios using two different approaches to conflict negotiation. The first scenario, based on a framework suggested by Casperson (2014), demonstrates addressing conflict “in the moment.” The second scenario, which uses the DESC model offered by TeamSTEPPS, demonstrates a more planned approach.

Casperson’s framework

Dana Casperson suggests the following approach for opening a conversation in which you address conflict: When (identify the triggering event) happened, I felt (identify the negative emotion you experienced) because my (identify your specific need or interest) is really important to me.

Workplace scenario: You are a member of a work team in a health care organization. Some team members engage in negative gossip and spreading rumors. You believe you have been the target of these behaviors and, one day, when you approach the lounge, you hear your name mentioned in a derogatory way. As you enter, the room falls silent. You decide to address the situation.

A Casperson response: When I approached the lounge, I heard my name mentioned in a negative light. It concerns me because being accepted as a valued member of the team is important to me. In the future, please speak with me directly if you have something to say about me.

The DESC model

DESC stands for: 1) Describe the specific situation. 2) Express your concerns. 3) Suggest other alternatives. 4) Consequences stated.

Workplace scenario: You and a colleague, Professor Grey (referred to as Terri in the response below), are team-teaching a nursing course. The two of you become engaged in passionate disagreement over specific content to include in or exclude from the course. As a result, working together has become very stressful. You are actively avoiding Terri, and you notice she does not reach out to you as often as before. To make matters worse, students are beginning to suffer the consequences of this alienation and are becoming confused and frustrated. You realize something needs to be done to resolve the situation.

A DESC response: Describe: Terri, thank you for meeting with me. I’d like to share an observation with you about the course we are co-teaching. Explain: I realize we have differences about our course content, and I’m concerned that this disagreement has begun to impact our relationship as well as our students’ ability to learn. Suggest: Because we both genuinely care about our students, it’s best if we can work out our differences. Consequence: Let’s use our course outcomes and objectives as criteria to address the situation. That way, we’re more likely to be successful in reaching agreement.

These conversations are not for the faint of heart. They require courage, preparation, and follow-through. If you feel that taking a direct approach with your co-worker is just too difficult, enlist the support of a trained expert or your supervisor in reconciling the problem. After discussing it, ask him or her to practice addressing the situation with you.

Either way—the Casperson approach or the DESC approach—taking action to address a conflict is not an easy or stress-free decision to make.

Reference:

Caspersen, D. (2014). Changing the conversation: The 17 principles of conflict resolution, New York: Penguin Books.

For Reflections on Nursing Leadership (RNL), published by the Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International. Comments are moderated. Those that promote products or services will not be posted.

Conflict negotiation, Part 1

Twenty years ago, I read an excellent book authored by scholars from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI, 1996) at UCLA. In describing a social change model of leadership development, they identified ability to engage in “controversy with civility” as an essential element. Conflict, they suggested, often implies competition or disagreement that involves potential aggression, and the term frequently conjures up the notion of winners and losers. Controversy, on the other hand, implies disagreement that has potential for positive outcome resulting in a solution that is beneficial to all.

Lokibaho/iStock

For controversy with civility to occur, observed the scholars, parties to the disagreement must accept two fundamental premises: 1) Differences of viewpoint are inevitable, and 2) resolution of opposing points of view requires that both positions be aired honestly but with civility and openness. Whether one uses “conflict” or “controversy with civility” when referring to disagreement, both terms, it should be noted, describe natural and normal processes which, when managed well, can lead to creative problem solving. This is particularly true when problem solving occurs in an atmosphere of civility, collaboration, and with intent to achieve common purpose. Successful negotiation of either conflict or controversy requires listening well and setting ground rules—rules of engagement—that provide a platform for acceptable conduct and interaction.

You don’t have to be mean to be a leader!

The relevance of the HERI publication I refer to above resonates even more for me today as I consider the political rhetoric surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. I passionately believe that positive and effective leadership only occurs in a context of civility, ethical conduct, and professionalism. Some years ago, I developed the acronym PEAK—Principled, Ethical, Authentic, and Kind—to describe that kind of leadership.

Leading with civility and kindness is not a sign of weakness, nor is it a philosophical abstraction. Rather, it is living and leading by a durable code of moral and principled behavior that is applied in everyday life. True leadership calls for strong commitment to ethical conduct and ability to empathize with others. As I reflect on some of the comments made during the current campaign season, I am reminded of a quote by Eric Hoffer, who said, “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength,” and another quote by Tennessee Williams, who quipped, “All cruel people describe themselves as paragons of frankness.”

Not all conflicts are created equal.

In my work as a consultant, mastering the skills of conflict negotiation often tops the list of skill-building requests. While many of us recognize that conflict can be a positive experience when it is addressed directly, we often avoid it, especially if a situation has evolved over time and bad feelings have built up, resulting in a breakdown of communication and damaged relationships. In some cases, individuals avoid dealing with conflict because they lack the requisite skills or are unable to create the emotional “safe space” needed for effective dialogue and conflict resolution.

Other reasons for avoiding conflict include believing that mentioning the conflict or attempting to resolve it may put one’s position or job at risk. Not all conflicts are created equal. Some may be resolved with a brief conversation that clears up misunderstandings, but others require work, energy, and willingness to revisit a painful issue. It is important, therefore, to decide which conflicts to address and which ones to let go.

Effective conflict negotiation requires that you carefully analyze your level of interest in the other party, and how important it is to you to resolve the conflict. For example, if the issue is not of high interest to you or you are not deeply vested in the other party, the effort required to resolve the conflict may not be worth it. However, if the issue is of high interest to you and you are also highly vested in your relationship with the other party, it is probably in your best interest to attempt to resolve the problem, especially if both parties care about the results. It’s important to realize that some problems or issues may never be resolved.

Ask yourself these questions.

Before engaging in conflict negotiation, ask yourself the following questions: How important is your relationship with the other person? If you are able to resolve the conflict, how much will it affect your working relationship now and in the future? If you don’t address the conflict, will it negatively affect your ability to work with this person now and in the future? How likely is it that the conflict will be resolved and the relationship improved? What are the potential costs and benefits of addressing the situation?

Once you have carefully considered these questions and have decided to address the conflict, it is important to reflect and consider how you may have contributed to the situation. Many times, people will say, “I had nothing to do with this conflict, and the other person is to blame for the problem.” In most cases, this is not a true assessment. Even when it might be true, it’s still important to consider the other person’s point of view regarding your role. Doing so will help you develop an understanding of that person’s perspective.

Reference:

Higher Education Research Institute (1996). A social change model of leadership development guidebook. Version III. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

For Reflections on Nursing Leadership (RNL), published by the Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International. Comments are moderated. Those that promote products or services will not be published.