Abstract

This short article is designed to look at the long term implications of the French Foreign Minister’s suggestion of sending offensive humanitarian aid into the cyclone ravaged areas of Burma. The dangers suggested herein are not the immediate effects of the humanitarian invasion of Burma, but an analysis of the precedent set by such action.  If the United Nations gives preference to its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) over its duty to promote peace in the world, the stability of international relations could be undermined. If the precedent set under the Westphalia treaties (1648) are vacated, then who will decide what it is a “moral duty” and who will decide who is allowed to breach the sovereignty?  After analyzing the precedent which would be set by humanitarian invasion, this article will compare the present situation in Burma to a similar situation occurring in North Korea (a situation which, under a hypothetical precedent set by humanitarian invasion into Burma, is inviting international action against another sovereign state).

Click here to read the entire article!

If you find yourself considering litigation to resolve a dispute, consider a couple of points:

· First, greater than 80 percent of all civil cases in most jurisdictions, and greater than 95 percent in many, settle at or before trial (from Beyond Winning:  Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes by Mnookin, Peppet and Tulumello).

· Second, if most cases settle before trial, but at a late point in the process, it seems obvious that disputing parties could realize considerable savings in time and costs if they resolved their dispute early in the process rather than later near the time of trial.

Are there options other than the threat of litigation that can help disputing parties enjoy savings of time and money?  Yes, there are.  In general, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes may be used prior to suit or trial to provide these benefits.  Furthermore, by engaging in an ADR process, disputants may reduce the risk of an “all or nothing” costly gamble of winning or losing their dispute in a trial before strangers.  Finally, and most importantly, ADR permits participants to engage in self-determination.  They control the process themselves and strive to reach common ground in order to resolve their dispute in a way that satisfies their respective needs and interests.

The spreadsheet in this article offers some cost and benefit considerations for using assisted alternative processes available to resolve disputes short of costly and time-consuming litigation.  With some caveats, the spreadsheet compares ADR processes available today at reasonable cost in money and time.  Generally referred to as “alternative dispute resolution” or ADR, these processes involve alternative dispute resolution professionals, i.e., mediators, settlement facilitators and arbitrators, who are trained and experienced in modern ADR methods.  ADR professionals assist disputing participants in resolving their disputes satisfactorily, timely and at significantly less cost than litigation.  In addition, most ADR processes permit the participants themselves rather than strangers to control the dispute’s outcome.  This would not happen in a formal court trial.  This self-determination aspect of ADR is one of its most attractive attributes of ADR in addition to the time and cost-savings benefits.

In a dispute, each party must determine the balance between the benefits and costs of moving forward toward resolution depending on the factual and monetary circumstances involved.  The spreadsheet provides criteria for use in choosing an ADR process that allows each participant to be heard, to negotiate fully and to maximize each participant’s opportunity to satisfy its needs and interests.  The spreadsheet does not attempt to answer all questions concerning the important choices involved in selecting an ADR process.  The intent is to create an ADR menu highlighting some important general criteria for comparing and selecting among several dispute resolution processes to resolve a dispute satisfactorily.

The spreadsheet assumes as a benchmark that the transaction costs of litigation constitute the most expensive and time-consuming dispute resolution process.  Transaction costs include the time-based costs involved in preparing a case for trial and then trying it in a formal court setting.  These costs include attorney and paralegal fees, pre-trial discovery costs, witness deposition costs, expert witness fees, photocopy costs, telephone charges, expedited document delivery or messenger services, etc.  Related costs include the time expended by party litigants themselves and witnesses involved in preparing for and participating in the trial.  A contract or business dispute likely will involve costs related to employee witness time spent away from their work assisting in trial preparation and participating in the trial.

The ADR processes described in the columns to the right of the litigation column in the spreadsheet tend to be less formal and time consuming than litigation, resulting in less expense.  Moving to the right in each column, the spreadsheet describes the comparative benefits associated with ADR that allow disputing participants to retain control over the dispute’s outcome rather than forfeiting that control to strangers, i.e., judges or juries involved in a trial.  Some transaction costs similar to those incurred in litigation will occur when using an ADR process, e.g., attorney fees and costs and time spent involved in preparing for and participating in the ADR process, but to a far less degree.  The spreadsheet indicates subjectively a decrease in ADR transaction costs as one moves to the right, reflecting that ADR processes typically involve much less time than litigation to reach a resolution and may be used even before a law suit is filed.  Arbitration may include transaction costs approaching those of litigation but they generally tend to be less.  Although less formal and time consuming than litigation, arbitration still suffers from the involvement of third parties who control the process and make the ultimate win or lose decision.

The rows in the spreadsheet provide criteria for comparing ADR processes with litigation and with each other.  Moving down each column, the spreadsheet describes criteria, including benefits and costs associated with each process, and associated procedures typically involved with litigation and with each ADR process.  The spreadsheet is not intended to constitute legal advice but to give an overview of different processes for use as a guideline when considering the use of ADR.

Spreadsheet - ADR v. Litigation

Definitions

The following describes litigation and some ADR processes available from trained and experienced ADR professionals.  The list includes some ADR processes not included in the spreadsheet.

Litigation – Litigation generally involves two or more parties involved in a dispute resolved through a trial that results in a public record of the outcome.  A judge or jury issues a binding decision that may be appealed.  Parties settle prior to trial greater than eighty percent (80%) of civil lawsuits filed in most jurisdictions in the United States and greater than ninety-five percent (95%) in many jurisdictions.  In many instances, the parties involved in a lawsuit settle on the day of trial after a significant expenditure of time and money.

Arbitration – This confidential process generally involves two parties who present their respective versions of the matter in dispute to one or more arbitrators.  Arbitrators conduct the hearing in a less formal setting than in a court proceeding.  The parties may provide opening arguments, present documentary evidence and witnesses, cross-examine the opposing party’s witnesses and provide closing arguments and briefs.  Arbitrators follow relaxed guidelines regarding the rules of evidence.  Arbitrators decide the outcome by issuing a brief award.  If the parties agree, the arbitrators may issue a more detailed written award, with findings of fact and conclusions of law.  There are very limited grounds on which an arbitration award may be appealed to a court.

Settlement Facilitation – A settlement facilitation process involves a neutral settlement facilitator and is voluntary and nonbinding, meaning each party may end the conference at any time prior to reaching agreement.  The settlement facilitator (sometimes referred to as a neutral and who is a mediator for all intents and purposes) in joint session with the parties and engages them in discussion of their issues, topics, values, needs and interests.  The neutral may conduct a confidential caucus with each party to explore options for settlement.  The neutral may evaluate and point out the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case, suggest options for settlement, make non-binding recommendations for resolution or give an advisory opinion as to the possible outcome if the case goes to trial.  These characteristics distinguish settlement facilitation from the facilitative mediation model where the mediator guides the communications but does not suggest options, discuss strengths and weaknesses or opine about a possible trial outcome.  Settlement facilitation is essentially the same as the directive-evaluative mediation process discussed below.

Mediation – Mediation involves a voluntary, non-judgmental, neutral and confidential communication process.  A trained, professional mediator employed by the parties serves as a neutral intermediary and facilitates communications between the parties with the goal of finding common ground leading to a binding agreement resolving the dispute.  In joint session with the parties, the mediator listens to the parties’ presentations, gathers information from the parties, assists the parties in communicating topics for discussion and reflects and reframes the parties’ presentations regarding their values, interests and needs.  The mediator helps the parties in their brainstorming of options and creative solutions leading to agreement.  The mediator may hold a separate, confidential discussion, or caucus, with each party to assist them in reaching an agreement.  The mediator uses the caucus when the parties may feel more comfortable in discussing certain topics only with the mediator on a confidential basis or when the mediator determines that a caucus may be help clarify issues, discuss a party’s settlement offers or be helpful generally to the mediation’s progress.  Use of caucuses during mediation will depend upon on the circumstances and the mediator’s approach to their use.  Mediation is non-binding and voluntary, meaning the parties may withdraw from mediation at any time so long as they bargain in good faith up to that point.  The agreement the parties reach in mediation generally is binding and enforceable.

As indicated, mediators may use several mediation models that should be discussed with the mediator at the time of employment.  This discussion assures that the model the mediator uses meets the parties’ needs.  For example, in a facilitative mediation model, the parties brainstorm options and create solutions to reach a resolution of the dispute that meets their needs.  The facilitative mediator does not suggest options for resolution, point out the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case, or give an advisory opinion regarding possible outcomes if the dispute proceeds to litigation and trial.

The evaluative or directive mediation model is similar to the settlement facilitation or mediation process discussed above but differs in some aspects.  A mediator using the evaluative or directive mediation model may suggest options for settlement, may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of parties’ positions in a caucus, and, at the parties’ request, may give an advisory opinion regarding the possible outcome of the dispute if the case goes to trial.  Mediators following either the facilitative mediation model or the evaluative, directive mediation model do not act as advocates for either party or give legal advice.

Related Dispute Resolution Processes

Mini-Trial – This nonbinding, voluntary process is typically used by companies, private entities and government agencies involved in complex disputes involving significant dollar amounts.  The mini-trial has some of the formal aspects of the beginning parts of a trial or arbitration in addition to the attributes of mediation.  In the mini-trial, each party appoints a member to a three-member panel.  The party’s member should be someone at a high level in the organization or government agency who has had little involvement in the dispute and who is not intimately familiar with the dispute’s factual underpinnings.  The parties select a neutral, third-party member who chairs the process, guides the parties through the process and serves as a mediator if needed.

Each party makes an informal presentation of witnesses and evidence.  Each party engages in some, limited informal questioning of the other party’s witnesses and presents argument to the panel.  After both parties complete their presentations, the parties engage each other in negotiations.  Each party’s panel member participates in the negotiations.  The third-party neutral serves in the capacity of a mediator if the parties deem it necessary to facilitate a resolution or to resolve impasses as they may arise.  An agreement reached by the parties is generally binding and enforceable.

Early Neutral Evaluation – This is a nonbinding process used to provide parties with an early evaluation of each party’s case with the goal of reaching settlement early before each party expends significant transaction costs in preparing for trial.  The parties involved make an informal presentation of facts and argument to the selected neutral.  The neutral provides an advisory opinion on the issues raised by the parties.  Using the neutral evaluation, the parties may then proceed independently with their negotiations with the goal of resolving the dispute.  Typically, the neutral may not have further involvement with the parties once the neutral provides the neutral evaluation to the parties.

Dispute Review Board – This process has been used in large ongoing construction projects to resolve disputes as they arise on site during construction.  At the beginning of the project, the parties (e.g., the owner of the new facility and the prime contractor who will construct the facility) appoint one or more persons to serve on a panel of neutrals, i.e., the Dispute Review Board.  The panel members typically have legal, engineering and construction expertise and experience in the type of project involved.  If a dispute arises, the Dispute Review Board assembles.  The parties present facts, issues and argument concerning the dispute to the Dispute Review Board which relatively quickly issues a decision the parties have agreed will be binding.

Takeaways

· Use the spreadsheet to compare the benefits and costs of using ADR to achieve a timely “win-win” dispute resolution with expensive, time consuming litigation before strangers in a public forum in an all or nothing “win-lose” litigation gamble.

· Use an ADR process, e.g., mediation, to resolve a dispute as soon as possible for a significant savings in transaction costs, recognizing that most lawsuits settle before trial, often just before the trial begins.

· Use creative and informal communications facilitated by a mediator to resolve a dispute timely, even before a lawsuit is filed, on common ground meeting each participant’s needs that is recognized as a principal, reduced-cost benefit of ADR.

Copyright (c) 2009, Edward G. Ketchen, All Rights Reserved

Edward G. Ketchen, Administrative Judge (Ret.), Creative Dispute Resolutions, LLC, www.creativedisputeresolutions.com served for 24 years as an administrative judge on the Department of Defense Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the US Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals (ENGBCA) and the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals (MSBCA) hearing and deciding state and federal contracts, construction contracts and procurement disputes.  He has served as an arbitrator for the International Court of Arbitration of the International Commerce of Commerce.  He focuses his mediation and arbitration practice on private, state, federal and international contracts, construction contracts and business disputes.  He also mediates cases assigned by the Maryland Circuit Courts and District Courts.

Premise: Conflict is a normal and natural occurrence of interacting with one another. The cost of resolving conflict is negligible relative to the cost of leaving conflicts unresolved.

Observations: Conflicts invariably arise between individuals in an organization, between organizational components, or between institutions.

It has become part of our job duties; however, some studies suggest that 30-40% of a manager’s daily activities are devoted to dealing with some form of interpersonal conflict. A manager’s inability to effectively deal with anger and conflict in the workplace may result in a large loss of productivity and adversely impact others who work there.

In the workplace there is either real or perceived unfair treatment, emotional abuse, discrimination, sexual harassment, disparate treatment, cross cultural conflict, anger, hostility, or potential violence. Having to endure these conflicts without sufficient tools, resources, outlets, or support, employees are destined to experience discomfort, and this distress can get out of control.

Definitions: Difficult behavior can inhibit performance in others and will only deteriorate if left alone, contaminating more people and incurring hidden costs for the organization. It takes many forms like rudeness, yelling, shunning, mobbing, gossiping, refusing to talk to or acknowledge others, harassing, incessant complaining to supervisors, ignoring directives, and slow working.

Recommendations: Most conflict within and involving people revolve around unfulfilled needs, primarily the psychological need for control, recognition, affection, and respect.

These needs are natural and quite human in that we all crave them, but when unacceptable or problematic behavior has been rewarded in the past in fulfillment of these needs, difficult behavior motivates the individual. We should try not to reward difficult behavior or reinforce actions or inactions that manifest it.

There is no magic pill but there is a prescription to change behavior in others. It takes time and patience to cure such negative characteristics, and it doesn’t help to ignore the problem behavior or respond likewise or criticize rather than cure or just brand someone as a problem and be the psychiatrist to their craziness. We can work to prevent unproductive and negative behavior that leads to conflict.

DON’T TAKE IT PERSONALLY…is easy to say but hard to remember when our emotions are blazing with anger, frustration, helplessness, or confusion over the actions of another, who we want to label as stupid, insecure, hostile, inferior, miserable, or other negative coloration.

What can happen is that we begin to see that person in that color only and trap them in stereotype with a label that becomes self-fulfilling. Holding onto the resentment of people you have to work with punishes you as much as it does them. You won’t change relationships by trying to control other people’s behavior, but you can by changing yourself in relation to them.

You can place your energy in blaming and deriding someone or you can use it to experiment how to find more productive means of interaction. It’s not easy to go back for more of the same old crap concerning somebody time after time, so why do you consistently relate that way? Change something!

FOCUS ON INTERESTS NOT POSITIONS… A basic problem in communication lies not so much in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each person’s needs, desires, concerns, and fears.

One person may say to another, “You’re such a perfectionist in everything you do around here, and I’m tired of you thinking you’re always right.” That position is something the speaker has decided upon, but the interest is what caused that decision. The underlying interest might be a lack of training and a fear of competition with a skilled coworker.

The other person may not knowingly be competing but merely trying to do a good job, but the perception enables the conflict. Interests motivate people and are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions.

Reconciling interests rather than positions works toward resolution. For every interest there usually exist several possible solutions that could satisfy it, but all too often people simply adopt the most obvious position.

When you look behind opposed positions for the motivating interests, you can often find an alternative position which meets not only your interests but theirs as well. Reconciling interests rather than compromising between positions also works because under opposed positions lie many more interests than conflicting ones. We tend to assume that because the other person’s positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed.

In many workplace conflicts a close examination of underlying interests will reveal the existence of many more interests that are shared or compatible than ones that are opposite.

When a coworker feels threatened by a “perfectionist” in the office and that feeling of intimidation boils over into overt hostility, these two people could become locked in conflict. A closer examination may reveal both want stability in the workplace and a better relationship with each other, but their stated positions separate them and damage their relationship.

As positions become concrete and explicit, the underlying interests may well be unexpressed, intangible, and even inconsistent. So, how do you go about understanding the interests involved in a workplace conflict; remember that figuring out the other person’s interests may be at least as important as identifying yours?

PERCEPTIONS CAN BLUR YOUR VISION… We all know how hard it is to deal with a problem without people misunderstanding each other, getting angry or upset, and taking things personally.

A major consequence of human interaction in communications is that the parties’ relationship tends to become entangled with their discussions of substance, and egos tend to become involved in substantive positions. People draw from comments on substance or unfounded inferences, which they then treat as facts about that person’s intentions and attitudes toward them.

People tend to see what they want to see and, from all available facts and information, will select and focus on those that confirm their prior perceptions and disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptions into question. It is important to discuss each other’s perceptions and look for opportunities to act inconsistently with those perceptions.

WHY IS LISTENING SO IMPORTANT… Listening is an art by which we use empathy to reach across the space between us. Passive attention doesn’t work. Not only is listening an active process, it often takes a deliberate effort to suspend our own needs and reactions. To listen well you must hold back what you have to say and control the urge to interrupt or argue.

The art of listening requires a submersion of the self and immersion in the other. This is not always easy, especially when we are interested but too concerned with controlling or instructing or reforming the other person to be truly open to their point of view.

Anytime you demonstrate a willingness to listen with a minimum of defensiveness, criticism, or impatience, you are giving the gift of understanding and earning the right to have it reciprocated.

Suspending your needs long enough to hear the other person out is part of willing yourself to listen, but suspending your needs is not the same as becoming a nonself. Trying to listen when you’re really not up to it dries up your capacity to empathize. Some listeners are so fearful of exerting their own individuality that they become nonselves, tucked into others, embedded in a safe framework of obligations and duties.

These people find it easier to accommodate than to deal with conflict, threats of rejection, arguments, or signs of distress in others. Such compliant people may seem like good listeners but aren’t really listening if they are nothing but a passive receptacle or reluctant sponge. Listening well is often silent but never passive.

Effective communication is not achieved simply by taking turns talking but requires a concerted effort at mutual understanding. A good way to promote understanding is to take time to restate the other person’s position in your own words then ask her to correct or affirm your understanding of her thoughts and feelings.

If you work on this process of explicit feedback and confirmation until the other person has no doubt that you grasp her position, she will feel understood, and she will then be more open to hearing from you. The simple failure to acknowledge what the other person says explains much of the friction in our lives.

Furthermore, you don’t have to be responsible for someone’s feelings to be aware of them and to acknowledge them. When two people keep restating their own positions without acknowledging what the other is trying to say, the result is dueling points of view. Whether or not someone is really listening only that person truly knows, but, if someone does not feel listened to, he doesn’t feel listened to. We judge whether or not others are listening to us by the signals we see.

WHAT DO FEELINGS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS…Emotions play an important role in everyday behavior, and there is no thought, attitude, idea, or action that does not have a related emotional counterpart.

Because of our childhood conditioning and societal norms, we often suppress or disguise our emotions, but they do exist and exert their force no matter how subtle or indistinguishable a form they take. For example, when a coworker becomes angry at something you have said, instead of expressing the feeling in productive communication he may suddenly request sick leave for the rest of the day.

In any relationship between people who are in continuous interaction over a period of time, certain tolerable limits of emotional communication are established and these boundaries are often drawn to not include an honest exchange of feelings. Throughout most of our lives we have developed ways to express disappointment, anger, or discontent in somewhat less than honest terms.

Through conditioning and experience some have learned that exhibiting hostility can prove ineffective in solving problems with others and, rather than direct confrontation, circumnavigate the stormy waters by using what is believed to be more socially acceptable forms of expression. This behavior may be functional to a point, since continuous complaining and abrasive individuals become ostracized, but discontent with one’s situation should find some form of expression which is rational and by which solutions to problems may be found.

If left unexpressed or if expressed irrationally, emotions will inhibit progress in improving relationships. Honest and open communications are necessary for a healthy, growth-oriented working environment, and people must be made to believe that expressing themselves openly is much healthier for all concerned. This can only occur when people feel safe in that expression, trust in the promises of mutual commitment to resolution, and do not fear retaliation for open and honest participation.

One of the secrets of dealing with difficult people in our lives is to figure out how to play the hand we’re dealt, rather than complaining and moaning about what that hand is. The reason some people in our lives remain one dimensional is because that’s as far as we go with them. Few workplace relationships last long if all one person does is complain to or about the other.

Listening to that person, especially to complaints, can be a burden, but if you have an associate who takes advantage of your willingness to listen, without listening back to you, this emotional burden can be difficult to bear. You can let this go on until it begins to hurt, or you can do something about it. Express yourself. When two people are locked in silent conflict, the best way to break the impasse is to elicit and acknowledge the other’s feelings. This applies especially to cases of mutual misunderstanding.

Don’t be too quick to tell your side, but concentrate first on listening to the other person. Of course, if that person has hurt or annoyed you and doesn’t know it, saying something about how you feel may be the only way to keep your resentment from escalating the situation.

SOME SIMPLE (BUT NOT EASY) PRINCIPLES OF DEALING WITH DIFFICULT BEHAVIOR…

· Use Conflict as a Natural Resource…….People who work together have different perceptions, and it would be unnatural if they did not disagree from time to time. The conflict generated can be a first step on the road to improving communication, solving a problem, and even building trust and cooperation. Avoidance or hiding conflict can be much more damaging in the workplace than facing it and dealing with it appropriately. You may even find that proverbial silver lining in a dark cloud.

· Don’t React…….Take time to cool off and gather your emotions. The most natural thing to do when faced with a difficult person or situation is to react. Give yourself time to think and remain focused on identifying the real needs and interests of the other person and yourself. Deep breathing and counting to ten is very helpful.

· Deal with Feelings…….Helping the other person identify or acknowledge their feelings tends to reduce the intensity of those feelings and allows the person to focus on the underlying issues. By encouraging and permitting the expression of negative feelings without fear of reprisal or punishment, you have increased the probability that your similar emotional expressions will be better accepted.

· Attack the Problem, Not the Person…….Keep an objective eye on the problem and detach any feelings about the person presenting it. Try to understand what the actual problem is and generate possibilities for settling it. Don’t attack the other person and try to see the situation from their point of view. If you make assumptions about their behavior, verify by asking or repeat what you thought you heard. Show respect, try not to interrupt, and avoid using hostile words that inflame.

· Practice Direct Communication…….Speak directly to the other party. Use “I” statements and be clear about points of agreement, about purpose, and about needs. Use body language to show support and attention. Ask questions to clarify and paraphrase what the other person is attempting to communicate to you. Ask problem solving questions. Other people can provide you with some very important information about yourself, positive and negative, and you can provide equally important information helpful to them. Words alone do not convey this information, so be aware of your body language and tone of voice.

· Look Past Positions to the Underlying Interests…….A position is someone’s limited view of what solution is necessary to meet a particular need. Until the needs and interests of each of you are ascertained, it is not possible to generate options that will be mutually beneficial and agreeable. Try to identify the other person’s physical or psychological needs, along with your common interests. You can bring these interests to the surface or you can leave them submerged only to emerge in unmanageable ways later.

· Focus on the Future…….Proving or disproving past allegations may not be of value to a continuing relationship at work. Give the other person ownership in the resolution. Don’t sell your ideas but engage in a joint problem solving discussion. Ask what’s important and be sure agreement is reached in dignity and respect for each of you. Any ongoing relationship you have with someone is longitudinal and can be altered to be constructive and improved. What just happened may be important or it may be trivial depending on how you want to make it appear just now. Remember, in a marathon you must pace yourself and believe that things will improve if only you give it the chance.

Holding onto the resentment of people you have to work with punishes you as much as it does them. You don’t change relationships by trying to control people’s behavior but by changing yourself in relation to them. Listening to and showing respect for the people we work with doesn’t have to be the same as becoming friends.

When deeply felt but unexpressed feelings take shape in the words that we share and come back clarified, the result is a reassuring sense of being understood and a grateful feeling of humanness with the one who understands. If listening fortifies our relationships by cementing a better connection with another, it also fortifies our sense of self. In the presence of a receptive listener we are able to clarify what we think and discover what we feel.

Biography:

Tony Belak is the Executive Director of the International Center for Collaborative Solutions at Sullivan University and faculty in its online Master of Science in Conflict Management program.

He is past President of the Mediation Association of Kentucky, past president of the Federal ADR Council, Inc., a shared neutral program in Indiana and Kentucky, Chair of the Louisville Bar Association ADR/Mediation Section, and past chair of the Kentucky Bar Association ADR Committee.

Tony is a trainer and consultant in workplace dispute resolution nationally and internationally and is a practicing mediator and arbitrator, having formerly been the Senior Dispute Resolution Counsel for the Department of Veterans Affairs and its national ADR coordinator.

Email: tbelak@sullivan.edu

Website: http://ICCS.Sullivan.edu

by Roxanne Emmerich

The dysfunctional workplace is a killer.  Untreated it will kill off your customer base, your profits, and your joy for living as surely as anything.

As managers, leaders and top executives within your organization you’ve got to kill the conflicts in your workplace first before dysfunction takes hold.

The Top Ten Workplace Conflicts That Disrupt Organizations - and the Cure for Each

No. 1:  No teamwork

The best managers lead a team – not just a group of individual employees. If you have employees at odds and you show no desire to fix it then you are leading your organization to a disaster.

So, make sure that the most direct supervisor meets with those involved in a workplace conflict to learn what it will take to resolve it and to secure a firm commitment to do so.  Don’t forget to spell out immediate consequences in the event of failure.

No. 2:  Saying one thing and meaning another.

If you have an employee with a pattern of saying, “But what I meant was…”, call them on it.  Requiring the offender to have all communications checked for clarity for a period of time usually nips this in the bud fast.

No. 3:  Giving lip service to new ideas then undercutting them in private.

You’ll want to enlist everyone’s help in keeping this workplace conflict out. Make it clear that dissenting opinions are welcomed during decision making, but that once a decision is made, undercutting will not be tolerated.

No. 4:  Defensiveness at reasonable suggestions.

As a manager, it is your responsibility to let your team know that you consider a willingness to improve to be one of the hallmarks of a person with a bright future in your company.  Defensiveness should be viewed as what it is - an unwillingness to improve one’s self.

No. 5:  Attraction to chaos.

Pot stirring is a violation of principles and a threat to productivity.  Counterbalance the pleasure they get from drama with a greater measure of negative consequences.

No. 6:  Not following through on commitments.

Let your team know that they are expected to acknowledge errors and make a commitment to clean up every last bit of the resulting mess.

No. 7:  Deflecting blame.

Deflecting blame equals deflecting responsibility.  Make it clear that the only acceptable behavior is acceptance of responsibility and (as above) quick work to clean up the mess.

No. 8:  People pretending like they “never got the memo.”

If there was no breakdown in the actual system, make it clear that the employee is responsible for consistently accessing internal communications like memos and emails so that he is never again “out of the loop.”

No. 9:  Refusing to deal with conflict directly.

Conflict resolution is an essential part of a manager’s job.  Performance reviews can and should count disruptive interpersonal conflicts against managers on whose watch they occur.

No. 10:  Gossiping and backstabbing.

Once you establish a zero-tolerance policy for talking behind another person’s back, give your people permission to address conflict head-on, out loud, courageously and honestly. And make it clear that giving or receiving gossip is not acceptable.

You may have noticed a refrain coming back again and again in this advice:  Make it clear.  Once you’ve made the determination to purge your workplace of dysfunctional behavior, your greatest ally and most powerful tool will be clarity. Follow the advice in this article and in my new book “Thank God It’s Monday” and you will terminate all workplace conflicts and improve your organization’s productivity.

Roxanne Emmerich is renowned for her ability to transform “ho hum” workplaces into massive results-oriented “bring-it-on” environments. To discover how you can ignite the passion of your employees, catapult performance to new levels, and boost employee morale of your company, subscribe to the Thank God It’s Monday™ e-zine at http://www.ThankGoditsMonday.com

A Workplace Conflict Resolution Case Study - Portuguese Version

In the article the author Denise Manfredi CNRC - Centro para Negociação e Resolução de Conflitos describes the interpersonal conflict between two managers of a medium size enterprise who served as the basis for this case study, which had as its objective the investigation of the influence of mediation on the flow of communications and affectivity within the enterprise.

The study focused on 19 participants, in three levels: Directors, the Director’s support personnel and Coordinators; and had as its theoretical foundation the mediation approaches: Harvard Traditional, Transfomative, Narrative-Circular and Facilitation based on the model of dynamic systems as explained by the Theory of Complexity.

Denise lives and works in San Palo, Brazil and the article is written in Portuguese so get out your Berlitz training and have a go at it.

Click here to read/download the case study.