Five Penultimate Goals

1
Five Penultimate Goals in the Engagement of
Conflict 1 Conflict often establishes a
forum for change. Stopping the battle and
declaring what we will now do, so that we
can get back to business is our intent.
2 Increasing tolerance for difference is the
second goal. People change. Commitment,
beliefs and attitudes differ, which is
not all bad. What you believed or did
even 1 month ago may no longer be relevant
to todays issues. 3 Reducing aggression and
disruptive behavior is our third goal.
Behavior that hurts, belittles, destroys or
reduces anothers opinion is not helpful. All
parties deserve dignity and respect.
Actions which diminish another are suspect
at best and unacceptable in most
circumstances. 4 Reducing passive behavior is
our fourth goal. Quitting, going limp, or
withdrawing from the process is counter
productive. We will focus on mutually
accountable action. 5 Reducing covert,
manipulative behavior is the final goal.
The purpose of this process is to arrive at a
joint decision. Anything less is
unacceptable.
2
STAGES OF CONFLICT By Dr. William Hendricks
C

• onflict produces identifying characteristics
  that reflect the intensity of distress in a
  relationship, progressing from relatively low
  levels of irritation to high magnitude
  destruction.
• When dealing with conflict we classify the
  associated issues into five stages. Knowledge of
  the conflict, its intensity and predictable
  actions associated with each stage inform
  participants in the best course of action. Three
  principles of conflict must be understood.
• As conflict escalates, so does
  misunderstanding. Each level has distinguishing
  characteristics and requires different engagement
  strategies.
• As conflict intensifies, options for resolution
  become more limited, and participant emotions
  redefine reality.
• As conflict magnifies, one issue stacks upon
  previous issues. Facts blur making conflict
  management risky.

At Stage One and Stage Two the focus of conflict
is opportunistic. The skills of creativity and
innovation provide the best course of action. We
learn to ask the question, What can we do
differently? Unmanaged conflict escalates to
Stage Three and Stage Four. The skills of
negotiation and improved presentation provide the
best course of action. We learn to ask the
question, What must be changed? Stage Five is
similar to Reality T.V. The skills of risk
management and leveraged resources provide the
best course of action. We learn to ask the
question, What has been Lost and What can be
salvaged?
3
STAGE ONE Problems and Irritations.
Conflict is real at this stage but of the lowest
intensity. Actual differences do exist. People
understand that there will be conflicting goals,
values, and accept responsibility for meeting
each others needs. Individuals are quick to move
toward rational solutions at Stage One. They are
usually optimistic and fully share information
with one another. Participants are able to stay
in the present and conversations carry little
innuendo. STAGE TWO Disagreement.
Disagreements are more complex at Stage Two.
Participants make a subtle shift from problem
solving to self-protection. Language becomes
less clear and generalizations about situations
are frequently noted. Hostility increases, along
with sarcasm and put downs. These are
frequently shrugged off when challenged as just
joking. The atmosphere is cautious and
information may be withheld at least for a time,
To see how things play out. STAGE THREE
Contests. Conflict at Stage Three is
relatively high and is not likely to Pass. A
Win/Lose motivation enters at this stage as
motivation shifts from self-protection to
winning. Beating the other guy is often
justified as Friendly competition. Generally
more than one problem exists, often playing off
of each other. This creates the appearance that
things are not as they seem. Problems cluster
and people find allies. Taking sides is common
at Stage Three. Each individual is looking for
victories. Distortion and exaggeration are often
the unconscious tools of choice, used to control
the dynamics of conflict. Shades of meaning and
intent are often lost as polarization emerges.
Participants begin the ineffective technique of
Mind reading as they interpret events. STAGE
FOUR Battles and Fights. The objective
shifts from winning to wanting to get even (or
hurt) at Stage Four. There is a desire to Get
rid of the other party. Changing the situation
is no longer satisfactory for one or more of the
parties, Someone must pay! And if an
organization slips into Stage Four, the costs are
significant for everyone. The Good of a
sub-group becomes the primary motivation. Being
right, and punishment become predominant forces.
Factions solidify and clear lines are drawn.
Being a disinterested party, or letting go of
certain issues becomes nearly impossible.
Cohesiveness within factions becomes more
important than the good of the whole
organization. Outsiders are often enlisted to
buoy up ones perspective and justify positions.
Middle ground disappears. STAGE FIVE
Irreconcilable Issues. Conflict at Stage Five
is war! The solution is no longer in the hands
of the any one party. The degree of destruction
and damage to ones reputation is often
overwhelming. Rational, logical members have set
a process in motion that has escalated beyond
common sense. In the end, the situation is
rarely satisfying, and far too frequently a
futile Body count. Those left standing in the
wake look for justification. A holy cause, is
invoked and participants are compelled to
continue the conflict, unable to stop the fight.
Choices are nearly non-existent.
4
SO What Stage of Conflict are You Engaged? (Self
Assessment)

• Score A low score above reflects Stage One
  Conflict. Conflict and the minor irritants of
  day-to-day engagement generally manage themselves
  at this level. If your total exceeds 30, you are
  drifting toward Stage Two and the likelihood that
  things will Take care of themselves decreases.
  What can be done to lower your score?
• Tactics for Stage One Conflict
• Creativity and Out of the Box Thinking are
  two of your best allies. At this stage
• people will usually lay aside differences in
  the interest of finding a good solution.
• Embracing multiple or diverse opinions helps
  people own and deal with irritations. At
• this stage, identifying a host of options
  and collectively sorting them is therapeutic.
• Keep person and problem separate. Learn to put
  things on the table without burdening
• the relationship with personality issues.
• Avoid polarization at this stage. Level One
  conflict allows participants to develop
• win/win positions. Encourage collaboration
  and avoid competition.
• Collaboration is the best technique for
  negotiating a positive outcome at Stage One.
• The introduction of compromise often escalates
  Stage One conflict into Stage Two,
• causing participants to act in less
  collaborative ways.

5

• Score A combined score that exceeds 50 suggests
  that you have advanced from Stage One to Stage
  Two Conflict. Your best course of action is to
  determine how much you have personalized the
  issues by reviewing your responses to questions
  11 17. The cumulative affect of unresolved
  conflict kicks in as your combined score
  increases, making it hard to deal with problems
  on an issue by issue basis. A score that exceeds
  60 is a major signal for immediate intervention.
• Tactics for Stage Two Conflict
• Creative solutions will become few and far
  between as you reach Stage Two. Do not
• expect people to just sit down and work on
  a problem. They will need time to debrief.
• Helping people focus on the here and now,
  just this issue thinking helps at this Stage.
• The opportunity to just sit down and talk will
  be uncomfortable. Focus the greater
• good before you dive into issues.
• People are more likely to withhold details and
  assume a wait and see position. Getting
• started is often a major hurdle. Finding a
  quick win/win before dealing with tougher
• issues can jump start conflict that has
  reached Stage Two.
• Suggesting that parties compromise can actually
  escalate conflict, especially if your
• score reflects the lower end of the Stage
  Two spectrum. At the low end, people can still
• assume a the good of one and all position
  and may balk when asked to give up
• something in the form of compromise.

6

• Score A combined score that exceeds 65 suggests
  that you are in Stage Three Conflict. Caution
  you have entered win/lose territory, and it is
  very difficult to work and build successful
  business practices when you are dealing with a
  loser! Saving face is as important as managing
  the actual issues. Polarization increases as
  your score soars higher. Conflict can no longer
  be ignored. And the need for an external
  resource to facilitate the issues is recommended.
• Tactics for Stage Three Conflict
• The chance to collaborate and enter
  discussions with an open mind have passed.
• Lower scores, below 70, you can possibly
  suggest that we affirm our positive intent.
• At this Stage, the desire to win has not
  become the drive to hurt.
• Compromise for most people means giving up
  something (usually as little as possible),
• but it is the most valuable tool at this
  point. Finding the best middle ground helps this
  
• process.
• Remember, in a compromise strategy the right
  person is not likely to win if the wrong
• person is a better negotiator. Focusing on
  original intent, and shared values can help
• realign the process. Also determining the
  greater good before negotiating the pieces
• is highly recommended.
• Find mutual benefit before engaging in the tough
  situations.

7

• Score A combined score that exceeds 73 places
  you in damage control. The best solution may
  have little to do with being right, but who has
  the biggest war chest. The negotiating
  strategy with the best likelihood of success is a
  dominating position. When an organization
  reaches Stage Four, unfortunately you may be
  forced to play rough (Rougher than your desires).
  Regrets and concern about the tactics used only
  emerge after the winners and losers have been
  defined.
• Tactics for Stage Four Conflict
• Give it your best shot is the slogan for
  success.
• Middle ground is gone, parties will stake out
  their turf and then argue as if their turf
• and corporate good are one and the same.
• Disclosure of ones bargaining points will
  become more difficult to discover. Parties
• may appear clam and rational, but often are
  boiling inside. Resolution must discover
• ways to disarm the most destructive motives.
• The ability to spin issues in a politically
  positive manner is an asset at Stage Four.
• While this can be a manipulative technique
  when misapplied, it does provide guidance
• for recognizing critical issues and the most
  important elements of negotiation.
• At Stage Four it is important to keep the key
  players engaged. When the debate shifts to
• the field, it is often very distorted. As a
  leader, you must manage the factions that form
• around boundaries.
• Although the original intent of the major
  players was positive, when conflict escalates to
• Stage Four you will find nested in the
  ranks, people who have an ax to grind and a point
  
• to make that is possess a destructive
  intent. Self interest is prudent.

8

• Score The cost of conflict is high! A score of
  10 or more on questions 32 through 37 should send
  shivers across the board room. Effort must be
  placed on ending the conflict as rapidly as
  possible. You must take stock of the loss, and
  reposition the surviving resources.
• Tactics for Stage Five Conflict
• Acting according to predefined values while
  abiding by agreed upon commitments helps
• a team take the first steps of reinitiating
  normalcy.
• Ending the conflict is prudent at Stage Five.
  Loss and damage accrue in this Stage.
• External assistance is almost always wise at
  Stage Five. Determining where we go next
• is a basic first step.
• Many people are swept up in the escalating
  conflict, but sit on the edges of most events.
• Building as positive coalition of these
  people, for post resolution engagement, is
• recommended, but be careful. If this is
  seen as one more (or last ditch) effort to oust
• parties it can extend the conflict and hurt
  more people.
• Old issues will resurface and habits can
  reignite the conflict unless a leadership
  initiative
• redirects resources toward new life.