Session 6
(Distance) Engaging Resistance
Offers building strategies for finding common ground with
resistant individuals and groups in order to achieve positive progress for the
greater good.
Engaging Resistance
Conflict is a natural element of interactions among
individuals, groups and communities. A
lot has been written about resolving or reducing conflict. This session focuses on Managing Resistance.
Conflict is the absence of synergy or agreement among
actors. While it is often uncomfortable,
conflict can be useful in generating new ideas or protecting weaker actors from
more powerful ones. The greatest non-violent
leaders – Jesus, Gandhi and King – used conflict strategically to increase
peace and happiness in the world.
Importance of tension
value of tension
positive tension vs negative tension
leader's role in managing tension.
Reasons for conflict
The reasons for conflict are countless, but they generally
fall into four types:
·
Resource –
disagreements about the use of resources that are important to each side.
·
Procedural
– disagreements about the best ways to pursue a common goal or strategy.
·
Topical –
disagreements about the value of goals or outcomes.
·
Personal
– disagreements between individuals, which may be connected to, but are not
directly related to disagreements about resources, procedures or topics..
Typically, in these conflicts, actors may differ in:
·
Hierarchy
of values – we may all love warm sunny days, kittens, and a good nap. But if you had to rank them, how would you
choose? A hierarchy of values is a rank
order of what is most important to each person.
Everyone would like to pay as little rent or mortgage as possible, be in
a safe community, have convenient access to shopping and entertainment, and
have a short commute to work. Where a
person decides to live demonstrates her hierarchy of values. Many people are unaware of their hierarchies,
and tend to discuss their values as if they were all equal.
·
Beliefs
– Determined by a combination of values, perceptions and prejudices, beliefs
help people make sense of the world.
·
Expectations
and fears – The willingness of people to spend their time, money and energy
in transactions with others depends on their expectations of conditions and
people involved. Fears are expectations
of negative outcomes. They are worth noting
for this discussion because what sides are willing to do in a conflict is
influenced by their fears about conflict outcomes.
·
Risk
tolerance – Everyone has worries about the future. Those people with higher levels of risk
tolerance are more likely to take certain actions when there is a significant
risk of failure or negative consequences.
Developers who invest in low-income communities before property values
appreciate have relatively high tolerance for risk.
Communication and conflict
In a conflict, there may not be any clear communication –
only various layers of miscommunication.
We all understand the world through our filters in everyday life. In conflict, we tend to reinforce our filters
until we become like Paul Simon’s boxer, who “hears what he wants to hear, and
disregards the rest.”
Communication is one of the most important tools in
resolving conflict. But poor, or poorly managed, communication can make matters
worse. Consider a planner who goes to
speak at a community meeting. The planner
tends to speak in the jargon of planning.
Since most of her communication is with her co-workers, she and they
feel that she communicates clearly.
Influential members of the community know little about planners or
planning, except that they are suspicious of both. The planner who speaks in jargon at a
community meeting thinks she is being open and candid. But the community members, who don’t know the
jargon, think she’s using technical language to hide information. As a result, they reject her and all of her
proposals.
We cannot control how someone hears what we say. But we can
manage – if not always control – our communication and the meta-messages
associated with them.
Behavioral psychologists have identified a number of
personality types that lead to different ways of communicating. If you’ve done other management training, you
probably have heard of DISC or Myers-Briggs.
There are a number of tools available to help you understand yourself
and others. These tools tend to describe
people as falling somewhere within a quadrant of personality types. (For example, DISC stands for Dominance,
Influencing, Steadiness and Compliance.)
For Leading from the Middle, we identify four major
personality types and behaviors: Director, Socializer, Thinker and Relator. As
you read further, please note that rarely, if ever, is anyone strictly one
personality type. Most people have
characteristics of all four personality types, but they tend to be “stronger”
in one or two areas.
·
Director: All of us like quick answers and simple
solutions. Directors tend to demand
them. Directors tend to be quick to make
decisions. Because they are direct in
their communications, they can appear to be brusque or even rude to colleagues
or underlings. But because they are
focused on moving forward and achieving goals, directors tend to wind up as…
directors. Directors do not respond well
to a lot of details. They may even feel
that someone providing too much information is wasting their time.
·
Socializers:
Socializers tend to be “big picture” people who tend to be focused on the
future. Like Relators, they are
concerned about the feelings of other people.
But like Directors, they tend to be focused on achieving goals. They tend not to be detail-oriented, preferring
visions and ideas to what they see as minutiae.
Socializers, like Directors, tend to also be direct.
·
Relator: Relators are strongly concerned with the
feelings of others, and how choices would affect other people. They work to build meaningful relationships,
and may feel slighted if others do not reply in kind. Relators tend to play nurturing and affirming
roles in relationships. Relators tend to
focus on details – primarily those that deal with relationships. Relators tend to be indirect, and so can
appear shy or nervous – or at worst, passive-aggressive.
·
Thinker: The Thinker is an analyst, and tends to be
detail-oriented. Thinkers are not happy
with the short answers and summaries that would satisfy Directors or Socializers. They want a lot of information (even if they
don’t have time to read it all).
Otherwise, they may be skeptical of the proposal, the ideas, and the
source. Thinkers, like Relators, tend to
be indirect in their communications.
The quadrant of personalities is based on two
dimensions: Openness and
Directness. “Open” people tend to more
easily get into social relationships than “Reserved” people. It is not that reserved people are
necessarily unfriendly. They just take
longer to feel comfortable with others.
Directness describes how comfortable the person is being candid with
others. Those who take an indirect
approach, like Thinkers and Relators, might be seen as unsure, plodding, or
even to “be hiding something.” Indirect
communicators may find direct communicators brash or overbearing.
|
Communication Styles Matrix
|
|
|
More Direct
|
More Indirect
|
|
More Open
|
Socializers
|
Relators
|
More Reserved
|
Directors
|
Thinkers
|
An economic view of conflict
A pyrrhic victory is one where the benefits barely outweigh
the costs. All conflict creates costs
for everyone involved, and these costs fall into four categories:
·
Risk –
This is the cost of the unknown. The
less that a side knows about existing conditions, their own or the other side’s
best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or about the consequences of a
resolution, the greater the risk.
·
Transaction
costs – These costs relate to the energy spent in managing and resolving
conflict. Everyone has a limited amount
of energy and ability to absorb and disseminate information. All of these figure into the transaction
costs.
·
Resource
costs – Lawsuits are a good example of the financial costs of unresolved
conflicts. But conflicts are begun,
managed, and resolved by people. Their
energy and time spent on conflict are lost to other activities. Resource and transaction costs are similar,
except that resource costs are opportunities lost to individuals, organizations
and communities, while transaction costs are opportunities lost to individuals.
·
Convenience
or comfort – Though it is difficult to measure, everyone values convenience
and comfort. Property values are much
higher in areas near transportation nodes and entry points because these areas
provide owners and tenants more convenient access to the things they
value. Industries related to recreation,
relaxation, and service, demonstrate that people are willing to spend
significant resources on comfort.
BATNA – the secret ingredient of successful negotiations
Coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their classic work,
Getting to Yes, BATNA is an acronym
for “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.” It represents the minimum outcome that one
side finds acceptable. It is also known as “the bottom line.” For example, if you own a car that works, and
want to buy another one for a certain price, your BATNA is that you keep your
old car. Many negotiators will enter into a conflict proposing solutions that
are far above their BATNA, and expect that through the process of negotiation,
will reach a settlement that is above their BATNA. For example, a worker wants a 5% raise, but
asks for 10%.
Fisher and Ury say that the quality of any resolution
depends on its relationship to each side’s BATNA. If all the sides get more than their BATNA,
they are better off than they would have been if the conflict had not been
resolved.
Positions, interests and fears
When sides participate in conflict, do they say what they
really want? Not often enough.
Sides in conflict will present positions, which are proposals or strategies that they feel will
make them better off. The positions
reflect interests, which are the
goals that the sides are trying to reach.
A position is like currency, which is used to get goods or services,
which are like interests. By
understanding positions and interests, you can understand each side’s fears – what they want to avoid.
In a large community development corporation, housing
managers, tenant advocates, environmental justice coordinators, and economic
development strategists may have different positions about the uses of vacant
lots in a community. But they all
(hopefully), share similar interests in enhancing quality of life in the
community.
Skilled facilitators work to resolve conflicts by helping
sides focus on interests, rather than positions.
Styles of conflict
Regardless of the source or nature of conflict, there are
five types of approaches that actors take.
The most successful negotiators will never rely on one type. Generally they use any number of them strategically:
·
Avoidance
·
Surrender
·
Compromise
·
Competition (win-lose)
·
Collaboration (win-win)
The approach that an actor may use at a particular point
will depend largely on several factors: the actor’s:
·
Understanding of his or her own BATNA
·
Perception of the other’s BATNA
·
Beliefs about each side’s powers
·
Expectations about the consequences of various
actions
·
Tolerance with risk
Avoidance
Avoidance is the commonly-used strategy of making every
effort to avoid conflict, or the potential of conflict. Avoidance strategies include not responding
to communications or not participating in encounters that could lead to
conflict. Actors who avoid make little
or no requests of the other side, but they also do not accept the other side’s
proposal nor behave as the other side wants.
People who engage in avoidance believe that:
·
The problem will go away or be resolved without
their intervention, or;
·
They are powerless to influence the other side,
or;
·
The cost of conflict exceeds the value of the
benefits the actor might receive, or;
·
Engaging the other side would escalate the
conflict to an unmanageable level, thereby creating the potential for worse
conditions for the actor, or;
·
The risk of a worse situation is too high for
their tolerance level.
Except in unusual cases, avoidance is rarely a useful
long-term strategy. However, it is
useful when the actor:
·
Is completely unfamiliar with the positions,
interests or fears of the other actors;
·
Is unaware of his or her own BATNA; or
·
Has determined, through a careful analysis of
the environment, that engagement would risk highly negative consequences.
Surrender
Surrendering is a two-part process. The actor rejects the other side’s proposal,
but behaves the way the other side wants to avoid further conflict.
Like actors who avoid, actors who surrender believe that:
·
They are powerless to influence the other side,
or;
·
The cost of conflict exceeds the value of the
benefits the actors might receive, or;
·
Engaging the other side would escalate the
conflict to an unmanageable level, thereby creating the potential for worse
conditions for the actor, or;
·
The risk of a worse situation is too high for
their tolerance level.
Surrendering is a useful strategy when:
·
The actor is seeking to build or rebuild new relationships
with the other side;
·
The costs of the conflict are higher than the
costs of the outcomes; or
·
The proposed goal has little value to the actor.
Competition
Also known as the win-lose approach, competition is often
the starting point for sides that will not engage in avoidance or surrender. It is easy to see why: When conflicting sides
present very different positions, the victory of one side’s position will lead
to a loss for the other side’s position.
Issues involving the use of property often start as competitive conflict
– after all, any piece of land can only accommodate a certain amount or
reasonable mix of uses.
Actors who engage in competition believe that:
·
They must hold on to their position, or;
·
Gains by the other side will necessarily mean
losses to their side, or;
·
Compromise is unacceptable, or;
·
Engaging in collaboration carries too much risk
(the actors do not trust the other side) or cost (it will take too much time),
or;
·
Collaboration is unrealistic.
Competition is a useful strategy when:
·
One side’s interests, goals or values are
offensive to the other side. For example, a community development corporation
may not be willing to accept the presence of an exotic dance club in a
neighborhood with many children.
·
There are no feasible opportunities for
compromise or collaboration.
·
There is no concern among the sides or the
facilitator about the ongoing relationships among those in conflict.
Compromise
Depending on the actor’s perspective, compromise is a good
condition that provides some benefit to everyone, or a bad condition that
leaves at least one actor worse off than they were before the conflict began.
For those who engage in avoidance or surrender, a compromise is a better
resolution of a conflict. For someone
with a competitive approach, compromise is practically the same as surrender.
In a compromise, no actor gets to fulfill his or her agenda,
but no actor has to completely surrender.
A classic compromise would be in a divorce, where each side gets equal
time for the custody of the children.
Actors who compromise believe that:
·
A compromise is the best possible outcome in a
conflict, or;
·
The conflict is not a zero-sum game,
or;
·
The other side will not collaborate, or;
·
Compromise carries less risk than collaboration.
Compromise is useful when:
·
A resolution is needed quickly, and the actors
in conflict are unwilling or unable to collaborate.
·
The actors are in conflict over resources that
can be divided, but not separated.
·
The process of compromising may lead to later
collaboration. A compromise solution –
such as splitting the hours in which different groups can use a community
center -- can reduce tensions enough to create an environment for future
collaboration.
Collaboration
Also known as the win-win approach, collaboration results in
all sides being better off, or at least no worse off, than they were at the
beginning of the conflict. Collaboration
requires trust from all sides. In
tension-filled and tangled conflict, getting collaboration from all sides often
requires facilitators and sides to be persistent and consistent. It’s no surprise that compromise is an
easier, if not preferable resolution to many conflicts.
To collaborate, each side has to do something that is
counterintuitive and can seem to make them more vulnerable – reconsider or even
give up their positions. Several years
ago in New York City, there were pitched battles
between affordable housing advocates and open space advocates over the proper
use of vacant lots in New York. Most of the lots were too small to
accommodate affordable housing and community gardens. Both groups had an interest in improving
quality of life in low-income communities.
If they engaged in comprehensive planning for each neighborhood, they
could have found ways to get both affordable housing and community gardens –
and probably in ways that they had not envisioned before the conflict.
Actors who engage in collaboration believe that:
·
Each side is trustworthy enough to participate
in collaboration, or;
·
Each side is willing to trust the other enough
to collaborate with the other side, or;
·
The benefits of collaboration outweigh the costs
of engaging in collaboration, or;
·
The alternatives to collaboration would be
unfair and unacceptable.
Collaboration is the ideal resolution for any conflict. But the more tangled the tension is, the more
work that facilitators, mediators, and sides have to do to begin and manage the
collaboration.
Approaching and Managing
Resistance
1.
Analyze the types
and complexity of the conflict. Is a
heated dispute between two co-workers a simple disagreement over a better way
to fulfill a strategy? Or has there been
a long history of personal tension between the sides that is now erupting in
the dispute? A key to understanding
whether a conflict is simple or tangled is the pattern of reaction by the
sides. In personal conflicts, members of
one side will react more negatively to members of the other side than they
would to conflicts involving members of their own sides.
2.
Assess whether
the conflict is productive or destructive. As noted above, conflicts
over resources, procedures and topics can be productive to the extent that they
can lead to new ideas or solutions that benefit all sides. Typically, in constructive conflicts, both
sides are willing to engage in collaboration or compromise, and are willing to
reconsider their initial positions.
Personal conflicts are rarely, if ever, constructive.
3.
Assess whether
one or both sides are benefiting from the conflict. Most literature on conflict
management assumes that all sides want to resolve conflict. Who wouldn’t?
People who get financial or personal benefits from the existing of
conflict. For example, realtors make profit from transactions between buyers
and sellers. Stable communities mean
less business for them; a realtor who is motivated only by money will see
conflict as a profit-making opportunity.
Gangs benefit when police and residents are suspicious of each
other. If residents refuse to work with
police, the police are less likely to get information that will help them stop
gangs.
4.
Determine whether
you should be involved in the conflict.
If you’re already involved, this point is moot. But if you are not directly involved in the
conflict, you should assess the risks and consequences to you by joining one
side or trying to mediate the dispute.
While it is a noble task, mediating conflicts also carry risk. Mediators walk a tightrope among sides. The more conflict there is, the thinner the
tightrope. Simple mistakes, such as
forgetting to share the same information with both sides, or giving members of
opposing sides unequal opportunities to vent their opinions, can make you seem
to be favoring one side. Similarly, there is also a risk that if you are not
able to facilitate a reasonable resolution to the conflict, you will harm your
credibility in future conflicts.
As with any communication activity, you do not have to be
directly involved. If you have few powers to influence the sides, you may benefit from
working with an influence hub.
Assuming you do get involved in the conflict, follow the
next steps before entering or engaging further in the conflict.
5.
Map the conflict.
Using the Conflict Mapping Tool, identify (to the best of your ability), the
positions, interests and fears of the members involved in the conflict, and
those who can best influence them.
6.
Assess your
powers to influence. No matter
where you are in the conflict, ask yourself: why would ______, _____ or _____
be influenced by me? Remember that every
person will have different assessments of your powers. To the extent that you feel comfortable doing
so, and it is acceptable in the organization or community, make all sides aware
of your powers to influence.
7.
Identify your
BATNA, and anticipate each side’s BATNA.
While we may think of a BATNA as a “bottom line,” it is not fixed. BATNAs change as conditions do; be prepared
to reassess BATNAs periodically.
8.
Determine your
most effective strategy in the conflict.
Always begin this exercise by thinking about engaging in
collaboration. If you do not think
collaboration will work, why not? Can
collaboration be a next step after your initial strategy?
Now you’re ready
to enter the conflict environment.
Follow these steps:
9.
Communicate in
ways that work with the filters of each side. Understanding and adapting
your language, tone and meta-messages to each side’s filters will make you more
attractive to each side, and build their trust in you.
10.
To the extent
that you can, manage the meta-messages surrounding your communications. By
managing the timing, tone, language, source and other meta-message elements,
you can enhance trust.
11.
Help each side
focus on interests, rather than positions.
People come into conflict because of different positions. But in many cases, they have similar, or at
least complimentary interests. Farmers
in the politically and socially conservative area of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,
have little in common with liberal environmentalists. But both support smart growth in the county
because they meet each side’s interests.
Environmentalists want to save open space; farmers want to restrict the
costs of neighboring development on their property.
12.
Expand the scope
of the issue and the variety of alternatives. Planners and community
development professionals often deal with problems related to limited
resources. Only a few uses can exist on
a site; a group can handle only so many different projects at a time. In a land use conflict, planners can help
conflicting sides think about available land in an entire community, instead of
just the site. In a conflict over time
and human resources, community development professionals could expand the
variety of alternatives by reaching out to potential partners that could take
on some work.
13.
Say what you’re
going to do, and do what you said you would. Reliability is a strong
builder of trust. By being consistent
and persistent, you can build your relationships with various sides.
One exception to this
rule is in making threats; make warnings, not threats. A common mistake of poor negotiators is to threaten specific
action – such as a lawsuit – if the other side does not accept a proposal. Threats give opposing side knowledge that
they can use to counteract the threat.
Threats of lawsuits, for example, may likely lead to the end of negotiations,
as the other side spends its energy preparing for litigation. Warnings of negative consequences alert
opposing sides to the importance of resolving the conflict without giving them
knowledge that they can use to further their position.
If you’re ready to reach resolution…
14.
Clarify the
terms of the resolution. The
resolution is not the end of the conflict.
It merely signals the beginning of the end. To ensure that the resolution is acceptable
to all sides and can be maintained, clarify the terms by indicating the
resolution’s purpose, the rights and responsibilities of each side, and the
consequences of failing to adhere to the resolution.
15.
Monitor the
resolution to avoid continued destructive conflict. You should anticipate that there will be additional conflicts as
the sides work to manage their resolution.
However, if the same conflict arises, it was never resolved in the first
place.
Planning as conflict resolution
Organizations and communities plan primarily to reduce
risk. Plans help them organize and
decide how they will invest and risk their resources. The process of planning can also be a useful
conflict resolution tool.
When a plan is drawn up, audiences who have not been
involved in planning will respond in any of the fifth levels described in
“Anatomy of Persuasion”: they may reject the plan entirely, comply with certain
parts, accept the plan but do nothing to implement it, accept and implement it,
or do more than the plan proposes. Most
likely, the plan will generate some sort of conflict, even among those who are
likely to accept it. This is because
audiences have not had the chance to engage in counterarguments.
Participatory planning helps to resolve conflict by giving
all sides time to express positions and interests. Planners serve as guides and facilitators,
and often they also serve as mediators in trying to resolve conflicts.
Some worry that participatory planning might generate
conflict. This is not surprising, given
that this type of planning gives different sides opportunities to express
themselves that they may not have had before.
But the planning does not generate the conflict. The conflict is there. By bringing the conflict to the surfaces,
planners can work with organizational and community influence hubs to find
lasting and fair resolutions.
Questions for reflection
Look back on a recent conflict that involved you, and didn’t
go well. What strategies (avoidance,
compromise, win-lose, etc.) could you have tried that would have worked better
than those you used? What do you think
might have happened?
Look back on a recent conflict that involved you, and did go
well. What strategies most helped you
resolve or manage the conflict? What
might have happened if you tried something else?
For more information:
Fisher, Roger, and Ury, William and Patton, Bruce [Editor]
(1983) Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books
Groff, Todd R. and Jones, Thomas (2003), Introduction to Knowledge Management: KM in
Business. Butterworth Heinemann
Hogan, Kevin (1996) The
Psychology of Persuasion: How to Persuade Others to Your Way of Thinking. Pelican.
Leonard, Donald J. and Smeltzer, Larry (1994), Managerial Communication: Strategies and
Applications. Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Jensen, David G. (2000) “Communication Styles,” http://www.searchmastersinternational.com/eprise/main/web/us/smi/en/candidates_career_dev_commun_styles Search Masters International.
Conflict Mapping Tool
This tool is designed to give you important knowledge to
help you in Managing Resistances.
Key questions for those not directly involved in the conflict
·
Why should I be involved in this conflict?
·
Why should each side resolve its conflict?
·
To what extent do both sides trust me?
·
What does each side believe I can do for them?
The conflict map
The conflict map: Where you stand (or are seen to stand)
depends on where you sit:
|
|
Perceived alignment in conflict (toward
one side or neutral)
|
|
Perceived
ability to influence
|
More
Less
|
A1
|
A2
|
A3
|
|
B1
|
Side 1
|
B2
|
Side 2
|
B3
|
|
C1
|
C2
|
C3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sides 1 and 2 are directly involved in the conflict. All of the others are indirectly involved, or
could potentially be involved in the conflict.
Issues for each position:
·
A1: Has more authority than either side, but may
not be trusted by Side 2. A1 needs to
build trust with Side 2 to effectively negotiate resolution. Side 1 may seek to get A1 to use powers to
initiate a win-lose situation.
·
A2: This
is the arbitrator’s position. Seen by both sides as being impartial, and having
the ability to hurt or help both positions equally.
·
A3: Same as A1, but perceived to favor Side 2.
·
B1: Probably will not be trusted by Side 2, and
will be seen by Side 1 as a source of support.
B1 has little ability to influence Side 2, but may be able to influence
Side 1 toward positive resolutions.
·
B2: This is the mediator’s position. Both sides see B2 as impartial, but without
the same amount of powers as A2.
·
C1: This
person, like C3, is seen as being squarely on one side of the conflict, and
perceived to be powerless to influence the outcome of the conflict.
·
C2: Perceived to be impartial, but powerless to
resolve the outcomes.
·
C3: Same as C1, but perceived to favor Side 2.
Important: These positions are not fixed. How you demonstrate your powers and your
fairness determines your position in this chart.
The two sides have positions, interests and fears. The other members may not have positions, but
they have interests and fears that would affect how they participate in the
conflict. Use the table below to
identify the positions, interests and fears of each actor in the conflict.
|
Side 1
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
Side 2
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
A1
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
A2
A2
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
A3
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
B1
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
B2
B2
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
B3
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
C1
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
C2
C2
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
|
C3
|
Position:
|
|
Interests:
|
|
Fears:
|
Before moving on to the next module, please take a few
moments to reflect on what you learned here, and how it applies to the
leadership principles promoted in Leading
from the Middle. For example, under
“Courage,” you might write: “Have the courage to say what you see and believe.
But be aware that opposing sides may see things differently, and that you both
may have valid views.”
Uploading ....