Conflict Resolution Competence for Managers

1
Conflict Resolution Competence for Managers
NIH Office of the Ombudsman Kevin Jessar, J.D.,
Ph.D. Deputy Ombudsman, NIH June 25, 2008
2
Part I Introductions

• Kenneth A. Lechter
• Lynda T. OSullivan
• Liz Waetzig

3
Contexts for Workshop

• 2008 PMAP requirement
• Other reasons why such a requirement is important

4
Workshop Overview

• Details
• Integrated Conflict Management Systems
• Conceptually
• NIH
• Interest Based Negotiation Fundamentals
• Cross Cultural Literary
• NIH Resources

5

• Part II The Office of the Ombudsman

6
The Need for the Ombudsman

• Formal systems
• Are often limited and ill suited to providing
  solutions
• Fail to help people identify and expand options
• Exacerbate tensions and conflicts
• Are unavailable for many things arising in the
  life of an organization

• Impetus at NIH
• Joint venture of OIR, HR, and EEO
• Limits of formal systems
• Organizational self-correction
• Flexibility

E.g., Claim of scientific misconduct/ fraud
Kevin Jessar, NIH/CCR, January 2007
7

• Ombudsman resource to all NIH staff to address
  any workplace concern
• Confidential off the record resource, except
  threats of violence no one has to know you
  contacted us
• Neutral as to person, position, outcome
• Informal/ Flexible able to address things for
  which there are not procedures
• Independent not integrated into line management
• Especially reassuring to employees and managers

8

• Ombudsman trademarks What We Do
• Identify issues and options
• Clarify desired outcomes
• Strategize to whom and how can I best raise
  this issue or concern?
• Assist with thinking through difficult
  situations (personally, professionally)
• Facilitate understanding and resolution
• Pursue organizational development NIH-wide
  through systemic feedback

All of this is done in a confidential, neutral
setting with someone familiar with NIH culture.
9

• Ombudsman trademarks How We Assist
• We offer (Generally)
• Coaching - Sounding-board Devils advocate
• Referral
• Facilitating difficult discussions (or
  mediation)
• Shuttle diplomacy
• Systems feedback
• Use of scientific consultants

10
Part III Managing Conflict (and Emotion)
11
Cohen and Cohen in Lab Dynamics argue

• At the risk of considerable overgeneralization,
  the data suggest that as a group, science and
  technical professional are poorly attuned to the
  dynamics of their interactions with others and to
  the needs and feelings of those around them (5).
• Thought and deliberation are focused on
  scientific and technical matters and not at all
  on interpersonal consequences (7).
• Paradox These findings come at a time when
  scientific research is increasingly
  cross-disciplinary and moving towards a team
  science approach both of which more urgently
  require these collaborative skills.

12

• Studies found as well that scientists and
  technical professionals are largely emotionally
  stable, impulse controlled, and open and flexible
  in thought and behavior.
• What this suggests is that despite
  less-than-optimal interpersonal skills, technical
  professionals have a high capacity, motivation,
  and willingness to learn and improve. What they
  need is data showing the utility of improvement,
  as well as the opportunity to learn (Cohen and
  Cohen 9).

13
What Makes workplace conflicts difficult?

• Emotions running high can . . .
• Narrow our vision and creativity
• Stifle curiosity, openness and playfulness of
  mind needed to solve problems
• Suppress our recognition of nuances - complex
  matrix of feeling and cognition
• Reflect perception by participants that identity
  is somehow threatened

14

• We cannot say that emotion should not enter in to
  the situation
• Once aroused emotions do not go away
• There is often a symmetrical nature of emotional
  response when someone raises their voice at you
  at you, you are more likely to do the same
• It can be difficult to work with emotions when
  you are in a conflict thus a 3rd party neutral
  can assist

15

• Harvard PON research suggests underneath the
  multiplicity of emotions are 5 core concerns
• Appreciation
• Affiliation
• Autonomy
• Status
• Role

16

• Each difficult conversation is really three
  difficult conversations
• The what happened? conversation truth,
  intentions and blame
• The feelings conversation feelings are an
  intrinsic part of difficult conversations
• The identity conversation Am I competent? Am I
  a good person? Am I worthy of love?

17

• Before starting the difficult conversation
  determine
• What is your purpose in having this conversation?
  What do you hope to accomplish?
• Is this the best way to address the issue and
  achieve your purpose?
• Differentiate between attributing blame and
  understanding contribution. Blame looks
  backward, understanding looks to the future.

18

• Once the conversation begins
• Start from the third story the difference
  between your story and theirs.
• Incorporate both perspectives in the discussion.
• Make clear what your purpose is.
• Invite the other to join as a partner in sorting
  out the situation.

19

• Exploring the stories
• Try to understand the others perspective.
• Acknowledge feelings about the issue.
• Share your viewpoint, intentions and feelings.
• Try to figure out how your differences developed.

20
Part IV Interest-Based Communication
21
Handling Conflict How can you gain perspective
to handle a conflict optimally?

• As you
• Focus on the issues
• Explore all interests underlying issues
• Look for possibilities and opportunities and
• Work toward satisfying the interests of all
  parties
• . . .
• Listening, Question-Asking, (Re)Framing will be
  keys to successful resolution

22
Broadening Perspective Listening
What do we Sense? What data have we picked up
or missed?
How do we Think and Feel about the situation?
Beliefs based on past experience Interpretations
of events Expectations for the future How do we
then feel? Based on thinking process
How do we Act? What have we been doing/what have
we tried? What options do we have for future?
23
Broadening Perspective Asking Useful Questions

• Interest-Clarifying Questions
• What need/concern does this satisfy?
• What makes that important?
• How is that useful?
• What will having this do for you?

24
Broadening Perspective Reframing

• Changing the wording or characterization of
  something to make it easier to understand, easier
  to accept, or more conducive to joint
  problem-solving.
• New concept must be data-based i.e., grounded
  in the statements, facts provided.
• Useful for
• Moving from positions to interests
• Giving parties another perspective
• De-escalating conflict
• Moving from past to present future

25
Broadening Perspective Reframing

• Difficult interactions (or people) may reflect
  and be reframed to
• Difficult issues
• Difficult tactics
• Difficult frames (tragic, debunking, etc.)
• Difficult systems issues
• Risk Provoking mistakes

26

• Reframing Examples
• 1. Frame issues as questions or problem
  statements.
• How can we . . . ? What can be done to . .
  .?
• 2. Frame issues so that multiple solutions are
  possible.
• Wrong Who will have use of the centrifuge?
• Better ?
• 3. Separate issues or problems from people.
  De-personalize conflict.
• Wrong Lets talk about Johns hogging all of
  the reagents.
• Better ?
• 4. Frame issues in terms of the situation or
  relationship of the parties rather than in terms
  of the persons attitudes or behavior.
• Wrong Lets talk about your negative attitude
  to helping anyone in the lab.
• Better ?
• 5. Frame issues so that they are a joint
  problem.
• Wrong How can Jean let everyone know on time
  when shes changed lab policy on using the
  centrifuge?
• Better ?
• 6. Frame issues in terms of future relationships
  rather than guilt or innocence.
• Wrong Could we decide who was at fault for the
  samples being lost?
• Better ?
• 7. Frame issues in a manner that does not
  threaten any partys sense of self or security.