| Go Back | Main Menu | OD TOOLKIT |
If the work and communication within an organisation is seriously hampered by internal tensions it may be necessary to do conflict resolution.
Tensions between people fluctuate, and are a normal part of life. The way in which tensions are felt, are expressed and are dealt with are probably greatly influenced by upbringing and by the cultural context. Certain people and certain cultures are likely to be more confrontational. Others show great patience - but remember. Or have found ways of dealing with conflicts via indirect communication, involving third parties. Also what is being interpreted as being a conflict may vary.
Someone can be involved in conflicts in two ways. A person may herself develop a conflict with a person or a group of people within the organisation. (Or may become entangled in a conflict with another organisation).
Or someone may be called upon to help individual people, or groups of people within an organisation to bring their conflict to some sort of solution.
When to involve yourself in a conflict? A reason may be when the work is suffering under unresolved tensions or conflicts. Or when people within the organisation are suffering.
When you decide to take steps you need to be clear about your role and position. What is your relationship to the issue at stake? Are you yourself a party to the conflict? Or are you outside the conflict, able to clarify and help solve the problem, or to mediate or arbitrate between the conflicting parties?
As it usually takes time for conflicts to reach some kind of boiling point, it often will also take time to solve the conflict. Again there are cultural and personality differences to take into account. Some people explode and simmer down again rapidly, others are more likely to build up tension in a slow and invisible manner.
Often when it becomes clear that 'something has to be done about this' the first thing needed is for everyone to tell their story, to express their side of things, to blow off steam. In such a first step of conflict resolution the most important thing is that all the parties involved receive their share of time, attention and empathy.
So that the first edge of pain and/or anger maybe softened somewhat in the telling of what happened.
There are no guidelines on how long this first step should take. Some people need a lot a time, need to release a lot of emotional tension before they can move on to step 2. Some are able to do this with all the actors involved and present, others - depending on (individual) background - may find this too confronting to do it in public or to show their emotions at all.
The second step of conflict resolution is to share and compile the available information surrounding the conflict in some kind of rational manner. In part this will be information about what happened in chronological order. Important information is how people perceived and interpreted the events which occurred. Nearly always conflicts are in part based on lack of information - about certain facts or events, and most certainly about the way others perceived the events. Be aware about differences related to class, culture, gender and individual background that influence the way behaviour and events are seen.
A third step is to analyse the available 'data'. At this point it is possible to develop working theories about the background of the conflict, the reasons for its occurrence, the relationship it bears to the organisation or the people involved.
The final and fourth step is to use the analysis (step 3) in order to decide upon certain solutions - which will hopefully solve the conflict, or keep it at a certain level, or prevent the involved people or parties from flying off the handle again in the near future.
The need to analyse and to explicitly talk about a certain conflict, in itself is tied in with cultural habits. This means that these four steps (blowing off steam, sharing information, analysing the conflict, and reaching feasible solutions) may be a Western way of doing things. Not only the way conflicts emerge, but also how they are dealt with will carry elements of culture and cultural differences in them. Some people for instance may find it easier to communicate via others. One way when working in a diverse situation is to talk in the beginning about the way people have learned how you should behave during conflicts or how to deal with tensions.
Analysing a conflict can be done in two rounds. Firstly one can try to pinpoint the issue at stake - and to identify other issues which play a role in the background of the current problem. Secondly one can decide what kind of conflict it is - because different kinds of conflict require different solutions.class=Section2>
Often a conflict does not stand on its own. There may be background issues or problems at stake. For instance in the organisation. Or within the people. Or in the development of the organisation and its goals (people have conflicts for instance when things are not going so well in the outside world).
An issue may also be the way in which the conflict-partners deal with the conflict. How is their behaviour? Are they involving other people, appealing to authority, using 'dirty tactics'? What is and what is not acceptable, even in the realm of conflict?
In this way it is possible to identify the immediate reason for conflict - but also the many more complex background issues involved. The advantage of analysing in this way, and deciding what are the most important issues involved, is that the solutions are likely to be more successful. Without such an enriched analysis, chances are that one issue is dealt with, but the conflict will re-emerge in the near future as part of another question.
There are three main types of conflict.
The different kinds of conflicts require different kinds of solutions.
Conflicts about identity are the most painful. Because parties may claim that the problem is not the behaviour of the other but the way the other is. Between men and women there is an ongoing and very fundamental tension about the subject of being. Finding a solution in this kind of conflicts may take a lot of energy.
You need to decide whether you are in a position to involve yourself in a conflict. And when you decide to do so, you should prepare a strategy.
In an early stage the outbreak of a conflict might be prevented. Is a common agreement still feasible? Can the conflict be contained by appealing to reason, by indicating to all involved that really the conflict can be solved, by making the issue manageable?
In other words, can you calm everyone down, and bring the issues back to more reasonable proportions?
If not you may decide to expand the problem. You try to clarify and attack the problems at a more fundamental level. It has to become clear that there are more and bigger questions involved than people may have thought.
The right strategy is the one which works - which allows the (right) issue to be looked at and dealt with - and which allows people involved to release tension, take steps to solve things - and to get back to work.
A wrong strategy is one which allows the conflicts to go on simmering under the surface, to explode again at unexpected moments. Or a strategy which involves such a battle that it injures the people and/or the organisation.
Again many of these decisions will be correct or not within the given social and cultural context.