understanding conflict causation and escalation · understanding conflict causation and escalation...
TRANSCRIPT
Bob Hosea 2014
Presenter:
Bob Hosea, Ph.D. Associate Ombudsman American Red Cross
IOA Conference Concurrent Session:
Understanding Conflict Causation
and Escalation
Bob Hosea 2014
• Please take a moment to read the case study (Conflict between peers) provided in your handout.
• The case study will be incorporated into the presentation discussion to provide examples of the presented materials.
Case Study: Alfonso & Denise (Conflict between peers)
Bob Hosea 2014
Bob Hosea…
• Associate Ombudsman, American Red Cross
• Ph.D., Conflict Analysis and Resolution
• Internship, Office of the Ombudsman, NIH (2012)
• Developed and administered (2004-2010) Nova Southeastern
University’s Student Mediation Services providing conflict
coaching, mediation, and training services to students,
employees, organizations, and athletics.
• Has served as a dispute resolution adjunct professor, published
articles, presented at conferences, and provided consulting and
training to higher education institutions.
Presenter Bio Conflict
Analysis
Bob Hosea 2014
• Some of the significant interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives
that offer insight for explaining conflict causation and escalation,
supporting ombuds’ proactive and intervention work.
• Decision-making process as it relates to and impacts conflict
causation and resolution.
• Using theoretical perspectives as a tool in the analysis of conflict
when coaching others and developing options for resolution of
disputes.
Note: This presentation provides ombuds with awareness of possible
theoretical explanations for conflict causation and escalation but does
not advocate for any particular theoretical explanation for conflict.
What we’ll cover today:
Bob Hosea 2014
• When coaching a visitor to your office do you
consider how the conflict was triggered?
• Does this awareness provide guidance
for developing a visitor’s conflict management
competencies and resolution options?
• What is your knowledge base for analyzing
conflict causation and escalation?
• Understanding and awareness for conflict causation analysis is a
significant competency for assisting visitors. Further, the ability to
develop a visitor’s conflict analysis competency broadens their
skills for resolving current and future conflicts.
Explaining conflict causation
Bob Hosea 2014
• Assists in educating party(s) regarding the possible
reasons their conflict occurred and escalated.
• Assists in developing options for the conflict’s
management and resolution.
• Informs our own practice awareness, both proactively
and for resolution strategizing.
Benefits from awareness of
causation theory:
Bob Hosea 2014
• As we listen to a party’s story we consider possible
explanations for the triggering and escalation of the conflict.
• The story telling analysis can be imagined as the peeling
away of the layers of an onion.
• As you listen and ask questions you peel away the outer
layers, hearing and recognizing behaviors contributing to
the escalation of the conflict.
• Continued probing and analysis helps you to identify
suggestions for the root cause(s) or underlying reasons for
the conflict’s occurrence (core of the onion).
The “onion” as a metaphor for
conflict analysis
Bob Hosea 2014
An example explanation for a
conflict’s causation and escalation:
Threat to sense of security:
Human needs theory
Equity theory
Psychodynamic theory
Attribution theory
Bob Hosea 2014
Our understanding of conflict and its resolution is informed through a
variety of scholarly disciplines. A selection of theories from these
disciplines useful for our discussion of conflict causation and
escalation include:
• Social Construction
• Reasoned Action Decision-making
• Human Need and Need for Security
• Trust Development
• Identity and Face Saving
• Equity
• Psychodynamic
• Attribution
• Systems
Selected theories for this
discussion:
Bob Hosea 2014
As a child, how did you learn about conflict?
• Social Construction suggests knowledge creation occurs through our
social interactions via language. Understandings of reality, self, and
the world (knowledge) are products of social interactions not the inner
workings of the human mind. Further, these understandings are
specific to one’s history and culture, resulting in different interpretations
of the same idea or event by different individuals, groups, and
societies. (Gergen, 2007)
• Our knowledge creating interactions are routine-ized and
institutionalized. (Burger and Luckman, 1967)
• Question: How many words in your vocabulary did you actually look up
in a dictionary? So, how did you learn these words?
Social Construction Theory (Developing conflict understandings and strategies)
Bob Hosea 2014
“A real or apparent incompatibility of party’s needs or interests”. (Bush and Folger, 1994) “A perceived divergence of interests, or a belief that the parties’ current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously”. (Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 2003) “An expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals”. (Hocker and Wilmot, 2007)
What is conflict?
Bob Hosea 2014
Mapping a Conflict
Precipitating
Interaction
Trigger Point (Value, Need, Identity)
Impact
(internal reaction)
Consequences
External
Reaction
Assumptions
(motive/intent) Boundary
External
Conflict
Internal
Conflict
(Source: “The (Not So) Merry-Go-Round of Conflict” in: C. Noble.
(2012). Conflict management coaching: The CINERGY Model)
Bob Hosea 2014
Mapping the “Internal Conflict”
External to self
Awareness of behavior (physical or verbal)
Incompatibility of party’s interest, goals, etc. creates a struggle between the parties.
Internal reaction (emotions, feelings)
Resulting perception of threat to beliefs
Recognition of incompatibility with own beliefs (values, interests, goals, etc.)
Assumption generation
Determination of response External reaction
Precipitating interaction
Internal to self
Decision making process
Bob Hosea 2014
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs postulates that “needs” are the primary influencers on an individual’s behavior. Behavior results from tensions experienced when a need is present or unmet. (Maslow)
As each level of needs is attained we become less preoccupied in that level and seek achievement of the next level of needs. Unsatisfied needs are prime motivators for actions (conflict) necessary to attain the unsatisfied needs. (Burton)
Human Needs Theory (Explains conflict causation)
Physiological needs basic life needs: food, shelter, warmth, etc.
Safety needs (Threat control) protection, security, law, stability, etc.
Love and Belongingness needs family, affection, relationships, etc.
Esteem needs achievement, status, reputation, etc.
Cognitive needs knowledge, meaning, self-awareness, etc.
Self-actualization morality, creativity, problem solving, etc.
Bob Hosea 2014
Trust…”an individual’s belief in, and willingness
to act on the basis of the words, actions, and
decisions of another.” (Lewicki, 1998)
Trust development model (Lewicki, 1996):
Stage 1: Calculus-Based Trust – Risk-reward calculation that initiation of
trust will produce consistent behavior and positive benefits, or result in
punishment for inconsistency.
Stage 2: Knowledge-Based Trust – Trust is strengthened through knowledge
development about the other over time, allowing for predictability of
behavior.
Stage 3:Identification-Based Trust – Trust is solidified through development
of identification with other’s wants and needs, creating understanding,
appreciation, and sharing of similar preferences.
Conflict resolution efforts can focus on rapport and relationship rebuilding
strategies if the parties are open to regaining trust.
Trust Development Theory
Bob Hosea 2014
Identity – Jones and Brinkert (2008) suggest
identify can be summed up with two questions:
Who are you? Who do you want to be?
Face - Perceived or actual threats to one’s “face”
(i.e., social identity, reputation) can cause conflict and escalate
existing tensions between parties. Actions such as casting doubt on
someone's perspective , competence, or honesty, or placing blame can
be perceived as devaluing or “face threatening”. In turn, defensive and
image-protecting behaviors are attempted to “save face”.
Conflict resolution requires the promotion of collaborative actions
supporting and protecting parties “face”. These actions can include
apology and reframing negative comments in a favorable manner.
(Isenhart and Spangle, 2000)
Identity and “Face” Theory
Bob Hosea 2014
Suggests that we become conflictual in situations where justice is distributed unfairly, in situations where we become aware that there is an unfair or an inequitable distribution of something of value. It is interesting to note how our definition of equity or the fairness of something can change depending upon our role, position or point in time.
Resolution results from examining the harm and injustice caused and restoring balance by apology and reconciliation, compensation, and revision of the rules and norms causing the harm and injustice. (Isenhart and Spangle, 2000)
Equity Theory
Bob Hosea 2014
Individuals approach problems from the particular psychological/emotional state (anxiety, fear, aggressiveness, guilt) they are experiencing at the moment the problem occurs. These psychological states influence our assumptions and perception of choices available to us for how we react to the problem. Examples include:
Aggression as an internal drive may cause people to act out even though they know better because they feel it is their only option, Displacement of anger where you know you can’t yell at your boss so you take it out on someone else.
Conflict management strategies include efforts to redirect and focus this negative energy into constructive outlets.
Psychodynamic Theory
Bob Hosea 2014
Attribution theory suggests that upon experiencing an event, individuals
evaluate the event to determine or attribute causation for the resulting
positive or negative outcome and then create a cognitive or behavior
strategy for controlling future outcomes. Attribution attempts to explain
the occurrence of a conflict by attributing it to something about the
person or situation.
Some ways we do this:
• Blameworthiness – assign responsibility for failure.
• Globality – cause of problem is seen as narrow and
specific to a situation or wide and explains many situations.
• Intent- belief that conscious decisions or planning was involved.
• Locus – assumptions about where the problem lies.
De-escalation comes about by exposing “misperceptions created by
inaccurate attributions”. (Isenhart and Spangle, 2000)
Attribution Theory
Bob Hosea 2014
Views interactions (individual, family, group, and
organizational) as part of a much larger system
wherein all influence each other, causing harmony
and disharmony to the larger system.
Conflict occurs when:
- People engage in continual redundancy of the same conflicts,
- One part of the subsystem becomes ineffective,
- Expectations or power is exceeded by one person or part of the
system causing an imbalance to occur throughout the system.
Resolution comes from examining the whole system to identify ineffective
parts or processes that contribute to the system’s disharmony.
Systems Theory
Bob Hosea 2014
• Alfonso has just experienced a difficult conversation with Denise.
• Alfonso makes assumptions about what he experienced. The assumptions inform his attitude, intention and behavior for addressing his experience. (Reasoned Action decision making process)
• His assumptions cause him to experience a threat to his job security. (Human Need for Security)
• His security threat may be experienced as a threat to his reputation and he may seek to blame someone to save his image. (Face, Attribution)
• Earlier that morning, someone rear-end Alfonso’s car. He has remained in a frustrated and angry mood all morning. (Psychodynamic)
• Part of Alfonso’s assumptions about his experience with Denise is that he knows it is unfair to him and his other co-workers yet it is being tolerated by management. (Social Construction, Equity, Systems)
Case Study: Alfonso & Denise
Bob Hosea 2014
Bob Hosea
Associate Ombudsman American Red Cross
202-303-7884 work
CONTACT
INFORMATION:
Bob Hosea 2014
Take a few minutes to read thru this scenario.
• What theories would you suggest help to explain this conflict’s occurrence?
• What theories would you suggest help to explain the continued escalation of the conflict?
• How would you use this information for developing the visitor’s understanding and how would you explain this information to them?
Case Study: Janis & Colleen