Interpersonal Conflict Communication20-12-2018

Interpersonal Conflict Communication20-12-2018

Interpersonal Conflict Communication

Transforming destructive patterns: A major feature in streamlining business

Forfatter: Daniel Jørgensen

Vejleder: Line Ramsing

Table of Content

Summary

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Problem-Need Memo

1.3 Method & Methodology

1.4 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Analysis

2.1.1 Defining Conflict

2.1.2 Theorizing cooperation and competition

2.1.3 Conflict Cycle – episode, epicenter and history

2.1.4 The individual – needs, goals and positions

2.1.5 Transcendence Method and Conflict Styles

2.2 Tools for transcendence

2.2.1 Dialogue

2.2.2 Nonviolent Communication

2.2.3 Onion Model

2.3 Recommendations

3.1 Conclusion

3.1.1 End notes

4.1 Bibliography

Summary

With common sense I establish that interpersonal conflicts in the work place have numerous negative consequences on employee well-being and company performance. However, this paper emphasizes that conflict merely a sign growth and change. Conflicts are potential creators but at the same time potential destroyers.

This is what Morton Deutsch (1973; 1990; 2006) terms constructive and destructive patterns. Throughout the paper I employ numerous theories to further enlarge on how conflicts evolve and how patterns of conflict induce themselves. If an interpersonal conflict turns destructive it will (if no action is taken) most likely escalate and focus will move away from the initial root conflict. This phenomenon I employ different models to describe – common to all is that the conflict will be characterized by hatred and violence. That outcome can and should in no mind be wished for.

Following that, this paper establishes the notion that only destructive conflicts have negative consequences on employee well-being and company performance. And thus the purpose of this paper is to, through theoretical facts, outline how destructive conflict patterns are prevented and/or changed into constructive pattern leaving the conflict parties with a satisfying and positive outcome.

I propose that companies/employees should strive for a transcendence outcome (Galtung, 2000) of every conflict they may encounter. Transcendence in this connection is not some meta-physical state, but rather it is about reaching higher than one initially thinks of. Galtung (2000) put Transcendence outcome above withdrawal, win-lose and compromise. In essence transcendence outcome leaves conflict parties with more than they initially wanted.

Transcendence may sound unattainable; however, I propose three tools for reaching that outcome. Galtung’s (2000) Dialogue together with empathy and creativity; Rosenberg’s (2003) Nonviolent Communication; and finally Fisher, et al’s (2000) Onion model.

The task is to discover common ground. What are the actual needs and goals of the conflicting parties? These tools can discover and establish this common ground and at the same time foster understanding and acceptance in between the conflict parties. At this state a transcend outcome is possible to found.

There companies need to train, educate or at least inform their employees of this knowledge and these ways of communicating; and at the same time encourage and appreciate such ways of communicating by giving space for such method.

Characters: 2,152 = 1 Page

1.1 Introduction

”All nature is at war, one organism with another, or with external nature.” -Charles Darwin

I work part time at a customer service job in a major Danish supermarket. I hate working on Mondays. Mondays are with Iben – a colleague of mine. I do not like her! She does not do what I tell her to do. Everything with her and me is about winning – ruling the other. It used to be just about who had to degrade ourselvesto open an extra checkout line in case of long checkout queue. Now the situation is plain competitive and destructive – I do not listen to her, she does not listen to me. Everything is zero-sum. This is not exactly a favorable scenario for a supermarket that prides itself on having the highest level of service in its area. This supposed high level of service is realized in some operationalized parameters like: Smiling staff, fast service, no cashier checkout queues, extensive refund service – all carried out in a nice welcoming manner. Believe me – neither Iben nor I smile on Mondays. This lowering of pleasure with work affect our wellbeing and daily work performance – and thus company performance.

This may be a simple and not too astonishing or surprising example; however it is not hard to imagine that one of us would call in sick just to avoid working with the other. Or imagine the case of the CEOs of two merging corporation getting in conflict and working against each other. Investigation shows that leaders use between 20 and 30 percent of their time on solving conflicts.[1]

1.2 Problem-Need Memo

People are people – we have values, beliefs from which we base our attitudes. Our values, beliefs and attitudes often interfere and clash with those of other people. Often this leads to no further problems, however sometimes we perceive our values, beliefs and attitudes to be incompatible and thus resulting in conflict: An interpersonal conflict.

Scope: This paper will adopt the definition of a conflict used by Galtung (2000) in his Transcend Manual: Conflict equals attitudes plus behavior plus a core contradiction. The nature of the conflict is dependent on how these three parameters are expressed. A reason for this choice will be further explained in point 2.1.1. Conflicts can exist on numerous levels such micro, meso, macro and mega level. Respectively, that would be interpersonal, intra-group, inter-group, in-between nations or even between Man and Nature. In this paper I will focus merely on interpersonal conflicts, that is conflict between two or more persons – the number of people is of less importance.

Justification: Today most of us rely on cooperation and most of todays companies apply group work or team based tasks in their daily functions. Thus it is critical to the single employee to be able to handle conflict situations with peers, superiors or for a manager to handle a conflict between employees for that matter. Therefore I have chosen interpersonal focus; and most likely skills acquired from being applied to handle interpersonal conflicts will have like positive effects on cooperation between groups.

Problem: Interpersonal conflict in itself is not a problem[2]. However, it can become a problem if it is not resolved and transformed into something productive, but instead result in competitive and destructive attitudes and behaviors. In these undesirable cases conflicts can have numerous outcomes, which directly or indirectly can influence employee well-being and company performance in a negative way. The problem in conflict is its potential to turn competitive instead on cooperative. Often the vague concept of open communication is prescribed as the way of ensuring a cooperative nature of an interpersonal conflict. However, what constitutes open communication? The question is why is it so difficult for people/employees to “open a conflict” – to bring the conflict to light in a way that reverses the destructive spiral? Thus my problem statement becomes:

Problem statement:How can companies assist employees in transforming destructive conflict patterns and in that way ensure the well-being of employees and company performance?

A positive outcome of interpersonal conflict in this paper would be the transformation of a conflict from being competitive into cooperative in that such would create productivity – making an unsolvable problem solvable. And that again would ensure the well-being of the employees and company performance.

Delimitations: I have chosen to neglect the fact that different cultures may affect conflict theory in different ways. Thus in this paper a company and an employee/individual will be Western.

1.3 Method & Methodology

Theories of scientific knowledge are relevant to consider at different levels of this paper. The major fulcrum of this paper is individual andidentity and inflicting identities – thus social contructionism, which ties to philosophical constructivism is a sound concept to consider. However, considerations on this is primarily done indirectly through the specific texts and argument used throughout this paper. This is connected to the feminist perspective I take in the paper. I will elaborate more on this in the end of section 1.4.

This paper should be considered an argument for its conclusion. The premises stem from knowledge gained from other authors and earlier knowledge. Their findings I deductively use to ground new knowledge. From this knowledge I induce recommendations for companies.When I seek knowledge from previous writings I must strive to work from a theoretical hermeneutics perspective as I need to adhere to understand text as it was intended by the author, rather than interpreting on the authors. I need to understand how they see the knowledge. I must see understanding as coming from the sender rather than being fusion between object and receivers (as the philosophical hermeneutics argue) (Sherrat, 2005). The importance, in this connection, of understanding as meant by the author has to do with argumentation theory. Mark Vorobej (2006) state four criteria for argument quality – here it is understood that quality is the degree of cogency. The four cogency conditions that must be fulfilled in order for an argument to be cogent are:

Truth of premises is the aspect of whether it is rational for an audience to believe that the premises in the argument are true.

Relevance of premises is the aspect of whether it is rational for an audience to believe that the premises in the argument are relevant to the conclusion.

Grounding relation between premises and conclusion is the concern of whether it is rational for an audience to believe that the premises in the argument provide enough evidence for the conclusion to justify belief in it.

And finally, Compactness of argument refers to the aspect of whether it is rational for an audience to believe that the argument contains no superfluous premises.

The importance of adopting an author’s understanding asserts itself when you seek to ensure relevancy. If I do not use points and arguments from an author the way he originally intended it, those arguments become less rational for my audience to conceive them as relevant. However, as pointed out by Skinner (1986) when referring to Gardamar’s philosophical hermeneutics it is impossible to omit from interpreting. And by interpreting, is understood that the meaning is creating in the fusion of horizons (1986:27) between the object and subject. Thus it can always be argued that the relevancy of my argument’s premises is questionable.

The knowledge I deduct from my sources I go on to induce (generalize) on to companies as an unspecified unity in the form of recommendations. Such induction I justify by the fact that companies are composed of individuals; and the induced knowledge is deduced from individuals. My underlying premise of this paper thus becomes: What applies to the individual, applies to the individual no matter the context. Accepting this underlying premise, my conclusion becomes valid; rejection of it reduces the conclusion to reliable with no real measure on the reliability. Thus it could be of future interest to conduct research on effects of the recommendations being put forward in this paper.

1.4 Theoretical Framework

To justify belief in my conclusion I will draw upon numerous theories throughout this paper.

Individual – needs and identities

I strive to make my argument as compact as possible. In that sense it is difficult to point out a more important theory. However, at the most basic yet profound level this argumentation is Johan Galtung’s (2000:84) model of Needs, Goals and Positions. It originates from Maslow (1954, in Miller, 2006). and other classical motivational theorists. The model illustrates how individuals formulate goals in order to fulfill needs; and positions to help reach goals. Galtung describe Needs as:

• Survival, as opposed to death, individually and collectively.
• Well-being, meaning food, shelter, clothes, health.
• Identity, something to live for – not only live from.
• Freedom, having choices for the three above.

(2000:84)

According to Galtung the model serve two purposes:

1. To understand when a conflict becomes hard – a conflict on scarce resources to fulfill basic needs.
2. To ensure preservation of conflict parties different needs in a resolution or transformation process.

Furthermore, the model can be helpful in the process of understanding a conflict. The model emphasizes the difference between needs, goals and positions. The relationship between the three is not always easy to understand as they are influenced the individuals rational as well as irrational beliefs of how to reach the goals and how to fulfill the needs (Fisher, et al, 2000; Rosenberg, 2003). This is my reason for using this theory. It serves as justification for usage of later theories and methods to communicate needs rather than positions.

Conflict

Another theory by Galtung is my definition of conflict. In his Transcend Method he proposes his ABC model: Attitudes + Behavior + Core Contradiction = Conflict (Galtung, 2000:13). Conflict becomes more than merely perceived incompatibility in goals which need a resolution. This definition allows me to put emphasis on the need for communication – seeing conflict and its transformation as a process.

Constructive vs. destructive processes of conflict

Conflicts are proof of something wants to change; and is potential changes to the better. In the resolution/transformation perspective a conflict can follow a constructive or destructive pattern (Galtung, 2000; Deutsch, 1973; 1990; Deutsch et al, 2006). As mentioned in the introduction a conflict is not necessarily negative unless it turns destructive. Morton Deutsch theorizes the conditions that give rise to a constructive and cooperative pattern rather than destructive and competitive with the theory: Deutsch’s crude law of social relations (Deutsch, 1990:245). With it Deutsch basically state, that those conditions are the same condition as those determining the pattern of a social relationship. And those are the degree of perceived similarity in beliefs and attitudes. Most importantly, these patterns induce themselves.

In connection to this Galtung (2000) words the attitudes, beliefs and core contradictions (from his ABC model of conflict) for both the destructive and constructive pattern:

Attitudes of hatred, distrust and apathy; behavior of physical and verbal violence; and a blocked contradiction is connected to the destructive pattern of conflict, whereas attitudes of empathy; a nonviolent behavior; and creative thoughts on the contradiction is connected to the constructive pattern.

Destructive vs. constructive is the core of conflict resolution. Thus the condition conditions giving rise for one instead of the other is of extreme interest. In this paper Deutsch’s theory serve the purpose of emphasizing the need for action to change these attitudes and behavior as described by Galtung as they will not merely change by themselves over a long enough time line.

As a rhetorical move this theory is followed up by Galtung’s Transcend Method, which will state tactics when the constructive patterns are not present.

Conflict Development

Jean Paul Lederach (2003) describes, in his work on conflict transformation, the concept and interrelations of episode, epicenter and history. He uses this model(Figure 2) to explain the importance of not only addressing the episode, which is the focal issue. Instead, he argues conflict must be seen as more than merely the issue in order to transform the relationships and during this process the issue itself. His view on conflict supplements the above theories and I use his model illustrate further that conflicts are not merely static phases with focal issue.

Conflict Styles and the Transcendence Method

The concept of conflict styles refers to a person’s (communicative) orientation towards a conflict. The original notion of conflict styles originates from Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (originally designed to describe management style). Since, numerous theorists have further evolved new models such as Thomas-Kilmann’s (1974) Conflict Mode Survey (Putnam, 1988). Their model is generally one of the most referred to and describes five conflict styles in x- (cooperativeness) y- (assertiveness)-axis: Competing (assertive, uncooperative) Avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative), Accommodating (unassertive, cooperative), Collaborating (assertive, cooperative), and Compromising (intermediate assertiveness and cooperativeness). Much similar Galtung (2000) has developed his model. The styles are close to the Thomas-Kilmann model, however Galtung employ his model to show conflict outcomes and not the style an individual subscribe to in a conflict scenario. Galtung dictates that transcendence is the preferred conflict outcome. It is equal to what “Collaborating” describes in the Thomas-Kilmann model. According to Galtung each of the five conflict outcomes has a specific process or methodology. The one of transcendence is dialogue.

I use Galtung’s Transcendence as a tool for directing conflict. It provides a tool box of what is necessary for turning the conflict from a destructive pattern into a constructive pattern.

Dialogue

In Galtung’s (2000) prescription on how to transform a conflict dialogue is the key process that leads to transcendence. He sees dialogue as a mutual brainstorm to unfold the conflict and define new goals of the conflict parties. This relates back the individual needs of the conflicting parties.

NVC

Non-violent Communication is another tool for avoiding destructive patterns. With Non-violent communication (NVC) Marshall Rosenberg (2003) formulates specifically how to communicate from needs rather than misguided goals and positions. Rosenberg (2003) explains NVC as “communication with the heart”. It sounds very idealistic, however what is actually meant is that he encourages empathy in both expression and listening and at the same time he emphasizes the importance of being aware of ones needs and it that way avoid judging, misinterpretation and revenge. Doing so, successfully, is very important in conflict situations and thus I choose propose NVC as a tool.

Fishers Onion Model

This originally a model designed for conflict analysis. Its purpose is to uncover needs goals and position as well as goal legitimacy among the persons involved with the conflict.

Most of these theories ties, to large extent, to what Miller (2006) terms the feministic approach, which is the perspective on conflict this papers adopts. A feministic approach is to view conflict as Co-Construction. Traditionally, models and views on conflict are rooted in Exchange, that is an emphasis on goals, transaction, offers etc., whereas, a Co-Constructive view emphasizes relationships, collaboration, dialogue and mutual understanding(Miller, 2006:211). According to her, initially, the feminist perspective might be interpreted as naive. However, she does emphasize that authors have convincingly argued for the better of the feministic approach. And this should be kept in mind, when reading this paper.