Fools Rush In

Intervening in Interpersonal-Conflict Situations

John E. Jones, Ph.D., Organizational Universe Systems

Playing the role of third party in situations in which two or more people are experiencing stress in relation to each other is often a daunting task. The purpose of this paper is to spell out when to offer this service, when not to, how to prepare, and what to do when you get the parties together. The discussion is pointed both to managers and to human-resource professionals.

The major consideration in interpersonal conflict situations is, How do we get these people to make a better deal with each other? The overarching goal of your intervention, then, is negotiation of a new agreement between or among the parties. Their goals may, however, differ markedly in the beginning. Their motivation may be to punish the other person(s) or defend themselves from being "caught" or accused. Many people want simply to avoid the conflict altogether, and they tend to see confrontation as a "dirty word."

When the relationship is important, as in the cases of boss and subordinate, partners, or spouses, not attending to the conflict can exacerbate the situation. Conflict strongly tends to feed on itself when it is not confronted. Since the term confrontation is often controversial, a definition is in order. Confrontation means requiring another person to pay attention to something that you think is important. It does not mean having a "shoot-out" or screaming at each other. It does not mean "pinning the tail on the donkey." It does not mean all-out war. It does not mean making the other person(s) lose face. It does not imply a hostile, unpleasant, recriminating, tension-producing experience. It can, in fact, be a healing, "freeing-up" exchange in which the parties come to understand themselves and each other better and in the process come to agreement on how to get along better in the future. It can be a time of forgiveness-both of self and of others. It can release pent-up energy in order to make it available for accomplishing goals.

When (And When Not) to Intervene

We have a personal rule that applies to interpersonal conflict: When in doubt, confront; when all else fails, try honesty. There is a touch of sarcasm in the rule, we admit, but there is "more truth than poetry" in it as a guideline. A failure to confront is a decision that persons in conflict with each other should be held accountable for making. In other words, there should be, according to our values, some consequences for the choice not to open up conflict situations in an effort to improving them. People should not be paid to hurt each other, and they should be held accountable for getting along with others in the workplace. They should be required, encouraged, supported, and rewarded for working through situations that impede the relationship. People are "on the spot" when they come to work. Engineering a confrontation is, then, not "putting them on the spot." Rather, it is helping them to work with each other accountably.

The choice of whether to intervene between and among persons who are in conflict with each other needs careful attention, since the session can make things worse instead of better. Here are the criteria that we use in deciding whether to intervene:

• Readiness. Are the individuals capable of working through the situation effectively?
• Commitment. Are they willing to do what it takes to improve their work relationship?
• Influencability. Will they be open and responsive to each other's needs and points of view?
• Accessibility. Can they make contact, on a day-to-day basis, with each other easily?

The general consideration is, do we have enough to work with inthis situation. Sometimes people want the third party to take sides, to do something to the other person. You can get finessed into "doing the dirty work" for the person who approaches you to intervene. Also, since the methods available to the third party are almost all verbal techniques, the parties in the conflict need to be reasonable articulate.

Take the opportunity when the "two sides" are at least minimally able to face the situation with a reasonable hope of improvement, when they at least can verbalize an agreement to live out whatever is decided in the session, when they appear to be receptive to being influenced, and when they have the possibility of talking with each other frequently afterwards. If any of the criteria give you pause, you have the opportunity to test the "confrontability" of the parties by opening up your concerns with them.

Structuring an Intervention

There is a critical need to develop a definite structure for intervening between two individuals in conflict. The facilitator may have to impose it to cut through the conflict, provide focus for the interchange. There is an obvious need for a climate of in order to relieve anxiety and use problem-solving methods. The session(s) need a strong sense of concreteness, a definiteness in the discussions and outcomes. The interaction needs to be marked by genuineness, authenticity, not game-playing.

It is important that the facilitator not be "finessed." Push them to clean their own laundry, and don't take sides. A critical consideration for the facilitator is, "who is the client?" The relationship is, not either individual. The goal is the promotion of growth, and there is a need for them to work toward a commitment to development, not just resolution (which is often unachievable, anyway).

The facilitator needs to be careful to establish realistic expectations on the part of parties in the conflict. Sometimes they don't like each other for very good reasons. Their readiness to engage each other productively is a vital determinant of the success of the intervention. Both must be ready, willing, and able to submit themselves to the process. They need to commit to going all the way. Participation must not be conditional. They must promise to go through the entire design. The overall goal is to come to "win-win" action plans. Avoid win-lose "solutions," and test for this condition: is either party feeling like a loser at any time in the process? The best strategy in key organizational relationships is, of course, preventive maintenance. Do third-party consultation before trouble begins.

Logistics for the Exchange

Third-party interventions need to take place on neutral ground. Privacy, a lack of interruptions, and no "turf dominance" are clear requirements. Even having other employees know that the session is taking place can have unintended effects and may put pressure o the parties (and the facilitator) to communicate the results.

The initial session should not last more than ninety minutes. This is a pressure situation, and there is a need to limit the amount of time that the parties in the conflict will talk with each other. If there is a large agenda, schedule more than one meeting.

It is always important for the interventionist to meet with the parties separately before bringing them together. These individual meetings establish the agenda, set expectations,. clarify the facilitator's role, and prepare the person to participate appropriately..

The facilitator needs to be in charge of the actual session that involves the parties in the conflict. This means that the facilitator has a job to do: direct. traffic and facilitate. In the beginning of such sessions the individuals often talk directly to the facilitator rather than to each other. The facilitator gradually steers them into a dialogue.

During the exchange the facilitator needs to be prepared to stay out of the way, letting the process flow, but ready to intervene when it isn't flowing. The goal here is for these two people to talk honestly and constructively to each other. So long as that is happening, the facilitator's guidance is minimal.

A Potpourri of Methods

Here is a catalog of third-party interventions that the facilitator may make during the course of one or more meetings with person who are on conflict and need to manage it more effectively.

Blaming. Diagnosing both who is "at fault" and the tendency to place blame on the other.

Fantasy. Individuals publish to each other what they imagine about the other.

Force-field analysis. Making a chart of the opposing forces in the situation, those pushing toward change and those resisting.

I assume that you know. Participants take turns testing whether the other knows something that the speaker assumes that he or she knows.

Instruments. Individuals share with each other their scores on self-assessment instruments in order to build understanding.

I-you-we. Parties in the conflict situation take turns making three statements: one begins with I, one with You, and one with We.

Lists. Participants make "good news/bad news behaviors" lists for what they have seen of each other in the last X amount of time. They take turns on the bad news lists, paraphrasing, until they achieve a sense of closure. Each may "cash in a chip" off the good-news list at any time.

More/less. Individuals make requests: What I need more and less from you.

Nonverbal confrontation. This may involve pushing/shoving, eye-contact encounter, etc.

Ogres. Participants share their "worst-case scenarios" if the conflict is not managed more effectively..

Outside mirroring. The facilitator brings in data about the individuals and the relationship, gathered from outside sources, such as bosses, peers, and subordinates.

Paraphrasing. Participants repeat in their own words what the other person is saying.

Planned re-negotiation. They agree to talk at the earliest sign of difficulty, when they feel "pinched" by each other.

Predictions. The individuals attempt to predict the other's reactions,.

Puzzlements. Each participant makes a statement, "What puzzles me about you is..." and then works toward a new understanding of the other.

Ratings. Individuals rate each other on a 10--point. scale for any relevant dimensions.

Reflection of feeling. Participants feed back the emotion that the other person is experiencing and/or expressing.

Resentment/appreciation/request. Each person says what he or she resents about the other, explores the characteristic of the other that is simultaneously being admired, and then makes a request of the other.

Role clarification. Participants diagnose the job expectations of each other and themselves.

Role reversal. Individuals "play" each other for a few minutes, as a form of feedback.

Secrets. Participants share data that could seriously jeopardize the relationship.

Self disclosure. The individuals tell each other important facts about themselves.

Solicitation. Individuals attempt to "enroll" each other in some project, idea, or strategy.

Teaching feedback. The facilitator gives an explanation of criteria of effective feedback, modeling the process, and directing a feedback exercise in order for the two parties to learn how to do it when you are not there.

Tell me more. Each person interviews the other, repeatedly making the request, "Tell me more."

Testing consensus. The facilitator pushes for action planning, observing nonverbal and verbal indicators of commitment to the solution.

Think/feel. Individuals take turns making statements that begin with, "Right now I'm thinking..." and "Right now I'm feeling...."

Three bags full. Participants create "graded" feedback lists: (1) What is easy for me to tell you about you, (2) What is uncomfortable for me to tell, you about you, and (3) What I wish I didn't have to say to you about you.

Three yeses. Each person interviews the other until he or she gets the answer "Yes" three times in a row.

Time out. Either the facilitator or one of the parties in the conflict suggests taking a break for things to cool off.

What/how questions. Individuals interview each other, using only questions that begin with "What" and "How."

In Conclusion...

This work is both needed and demanding. It requires courage and skill, and it can be taxing on the facilitator. Most organizations are not confrontive, and their employees have neither the motivation nor the competency to work things through routinely. The facilitator can make a deep and lasting contribution by filling the role of third-party consultant.

From the 1996 HR Handbook, E. Biech & J.E. Jones, Eds. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. (1-800/822-2801)