Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? Working Effectively with Conflict

1. Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?Working Effectively with Conflict Judith Albino, PhD President Emerita and Professor

2. Goals for the Session • Understand conflict in organizations • Understand the variety of individual conflict styles • Identify our individual conflict styles • Practice analyzing conflict styles in academic settings • Practice using information about conflict styles to achieve optimal resolution of problems and preserve relationships • Understand basic negotiation skills

3. What do we know about CONFLICT? • It’s a part of life, a part of work. • It occurs when… interdependent parties perceive interference from each other in achieving their respectivegoals.

4. Two Types of Conflict: • People want the same thing, but have to settle for different things. or • People want different things, but have to settle for the same things.

5. Four Possible Outcomes: • Problem resolved; relationship maintained or improved • Problem resolved; relationship deteriorates • Problem not resolved; relationship deteriorates • Problem not resolved; relationship maintained or improved

6. Conflict in Universities isComplicated by: • Organizational Dynamics • Culture and Traditions • Policies and Procedures • Institutional Structure and History • Individual Responses to Conflict

7. Remember that: • Conflict is natural and to be expected. • Conflict is about people and personality, as well as situations, facts, ideas, and tasks. • People tend to respond to conflict in different – but individually consistent – ways.

8. Determining Your Conflict Style with the Thomas Kilmann Inventory (TKI)

9. Completing the TKI • Respond to the 30 items on pp 2-4 by: - choosing the statement from each pair that most often describes you, or is most likely to characterize your behavior - on page 6, record your choices, and count the number of responses in each column - on page 10, use the sums on page 6 to chart your relative style preferences

10. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument • Assesses individual preferences or inclinations in handling conflict • Compares individual styles to those of other managers who have taken the assessment • Suggests ways to most effectively use and expand your repertoire of conflict management skills

11. Conflict Styles: Assertiveness and Cooperativeness

12. Five Conflict Styles (TKI) 1.Competing – “Might makes right.” (Hi A, Lo C) 2. Accommodating – “Kill your enemies w/kindness” (Lo A, Hi C) 3. Avoiding – “Leave well enough alone.” (Lo A, Lo C) 4. Collaborating – “Two heads are better than one.” (Hi A, Hi Co) 5. Compromising – “Split the difference.” (Mod A, Mod C)

13. Example:Chronic Committee Chairperson

14. Which Style is Best? • Most people use all at various times. • Most people naturally prefer one style. • Situation, culture, personality can influence the best style at a given time. • All styles can be useful!

15. Different Styles have Different Goals • Competing: the goal is to win. • Accommodating: the goal is to yield. • Avoiding: the goal is to delay. • Collaborating: the goal is multiple participation. • Compromising: the goal is to find a middle ground.

16. Competing is Effective: • When quick decisive action is needed • On important issues when unpopular action must be taken • When the issue is vital, and the right course is clear • To protect against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior

17. Accommodating is Effective: • When you are wrong, when learning is important, or when demonstrating reasonableness is critical • When creating goodwill is paramount • To build social credits for later use • To stop unproductive or damaging competition • When harmony is important • When it’s important for others to learn from experience

18. Avoiding Is Effective: • When the issue is relatively trivial • When you know you can’t be satisfied • When the costs of conflict outweigh the benefits of resolution • To allow “cooling off” • When it’s important to have more information • When others can resolve the issue more effectively • When the conflict is tangential to something more important

19. Collaborating Is Effective: • When it is important that both sides be integrated • When you want to learn and fully understand others’ views • To merge different perspectives and insights • To gain commitment through consensual decisions • To work through hard feelings that have interfered with interpersonal relationships

20. Compromising Is Effective: • When goals are less important than avoiding the disruption caused by more assertive conflict resolution styles • When opponents have equal power and commitment to mutually exclusive goals • To temporarily settle complex issues • To quickly achieve an expedient solution • As a backup style when collaboration or competition fails

21. Whatever style you use, there are some Basic Skills for Conflict Resolution: • Manage anger • Listen actively • Avoid assumptions • Find something on which to agree • Be cautious with criticism • Negotiate (more later!) • Get help

22. Analyzing Conflict Situations • Four Cases • Work Individually and in Groups • Report Back

23. What’s Your Style?

24. You are an assistant professor sitting in your office in a clinical department, pouring over some data from a recent study. You hope these data are sound enough to produce a paper for an upcoming conference and perhaps a manuscript for publication as well. There is a knock at the door, and you turn to see Von Kraft, the department’s most distinguished, albeit somewhat imperious, professor. He also chairs the department’s promotion and tenure committee. He announces that he has an idea for a new research project, and he wants you to work with him. The project sounds interesting, but it is not in an area in which you have been working. He has minimal funding from a foundation, but assures you it will allow for completion of a pilot. Your mind is racing. Taking this on would throw off your research agenda and publishing schedule. You also know Von Kraft’s reputation – you’ll do the work, and he’ll be PI and get first authorship. When you tentatively suggest that you just don’t think you have the time, he gives you a stern look and says, “That would be a big mistake; this is a major opportunity.” You know that he needs pilot data to prepare an NIH application, but you’re hoping to pull together your own R01 with the data in front of you now. Conflict Case 1: Ambiguous Power

25. Conflict Case 2: Role of Research You are an assistant professor of pediatric medicine and were hired with the expectation that your primary focus would be on research. Moreover, the University’s new promotion and tenure policy reflects even greater emphasis on research than in the past.  Nonetheless, you understand that you must also demonstrate proficiency in teaching and service. You have been doing your share of clinical teaching, and you are on the curriculum committee, which is especially time-consuming this year, since re-accreditation is only a year away. Yesterday, your department chairman, Dr. Mort, called to say he wants you to represent the department on the School Admissions Committee. He explained that it is an unusual role for a junior faculty member, but he thinks your work on the curriculum committee demonstrates your talent for this sort of demanding assignment. You know that this will involve many hours pouring over applications and interviewing potential students. It would be interesting, but you see no way to leverage scholarly efforts from this effort, and you are feeling a great deal of pressure to demonstrate your ability to develop a funded research program. When you explain, Dr. Mort assures you that committee work also is valued. “Don’t let me down. I need your support on this,” he says in concluding the call.

26. Conflict Case 3: Profiting from Research You are an assistant professor and have been working with Dr. Avarizo for several years. A senior scientist, he has been successful not only in obtaining grant funding for his work, but also in obtaining patents; he runs a company which produces and sells the medical devices developed with those patents. Although you have heard rumors that he developed some devices at the University and that graduate students were involved in the work, you have never seriously questioned his behavior. This is the first time that you have been asked to oversee the budget on one of his grants, and you are disturbed by one of the items on your desk. Dr. Avarizo has asked you to order one of his instruments for measurement of blood oxygen capacity in study participants and to certify that his company is a “sole source” provider. You wrote much of the grant, and you know that a simpler (and less expensive) instrument would do the job. When you asked whether he really thought the extra features were needed, he just said breezily, “We should get the best; I assure you it will be worth it.” Now you’re worried. You think this constitutes self-dealing and is against University policy, but you don’t want to offend someone who clearly could make or break your scientific career. You wish he would reconsider.

27. Conflict Case 4: Research Collaboration You are an assistant professor at Best University School of Medicine and are working on a project with a colleague, for which you have a small grant to study a new way of screening for otitis that uses health educators who will teach parents basic identification and early management skills. You worked well together in planning, but now find that you are clashing during the implementation phase of the project. Your colleague, Dr. No Wei, has a tendency to micro-manage the three health educators who, in turn, complain to you. Now, one of them has quit three months into the project, and your colleague insists that the trial cannot continue, since the original design called for 3 interventionists. He wants to hire another health educator, re-standardize, and start over. You want to calibrate a third educator -- or just continue with two. When you suggested this, your colleague insisted that your approach would violate the scientific integrity of the study. You are willing to report all issues and changes in your write-up of the data, but since this is a pilot, you believe it is important to move ahead. Your colleague is adamant, however, and says that he will instruct the remaining health educators not to report again to their assigned practice locations. You know the funding will not support his approach, and you are somewhat offended as well by his attitude..

28. Your Style and Negotiation What is negotiation? a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem. Win-Lose or Win-Win "In a successful negotiation, everyone wins. The objective should be agreement, not victory."

29. “Getting to Yes”A Basic Negotiation Framework* • Separate the people from the problem. • Focus on interests, not positions. • Generate a variety of options before deciding what to do. • Work for a result based on objective standards, or criteria. *Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes, 1981.

30. Separate the People from the Problem • Perceptions -- put yourself in their shoes • Separate your fears from their intentions • Don’t blame them for your problem • Share the process (and give others a stake) • “Save face” – proposals consistent with their values • Recognize and understand emotions • Listen actively • Speak purposely to be understood (don’t debate) • Build relationship to face the problem

31. Focus on Interests – not Positions • Try to understand the interests behind positions • Ask “why?” and “why not?” about choices • Make lists of multiple interests • Try to understand the impact on interests • Be specific; make interests “come alive” • Make their interests part of the problem • Look forward, not back • Be flexible, but specific • Be hard on the problem, soft on people

32. Generate Multiple Options • Avoid: 1) premature judgment, 2) single answers, 3) assuming a “fixed pie”, 4) assigning responsibility • “Brainstorm” – be expansive, flexible, and creative • Toggle between general and specific • Consider the perspectives of various experts • Change the “strength” of options – scope, duration, etc. • Identify shared interests; dovetail differing ones • Make the decision easy • A first draft should be “yesable”

33. Use Objective Criteria • Objective Criteria provide a principled foundation • Criteria involve both “outcomes” and “procedures” Frame issues as a joint search for criteria Reason and be open to reason Don’t just yield to pressure

34. Preparation for Negotiation • What do the parties want? • What can be “traded”? • What are the alternatives to agreement? • How does the relationship affect negotiations? • What can be expected, based on the past? • What’s at stake? Consequences on both sides? • What are the power issues? • What are the possible compromises? Creative options? • What are the conflict styles of negotiating parties?

35. Summary: What is a Successful Negotiation? • Parties willingly work together to resolve an issue by: Understanding respective interests Identifying objective criteria Generating options The result is satisfactory to both parties. Win-Win!!

36. Thank You! Judith Albino, PhD President Emerita and Professor