Conflict Management Class

The Syllabus

Course Goal

To analyze and apply conflict management concepts, principles, strategies and techniques to a personal case story of a significant work-related conflict.

Course Objectives

1. To analyze conflicts in terms of:

            a. Structure and dynamics of conflict episodes
            b. Underlying motivational elements
            c. Escalation /de-escalation behaviors
            d. Integrative and distributive choices and behaviors
            e. Interventionist strategies and techniques
            f. Underlying conflict party characteristics and organizational
               structures relevant for increasing the potential for integrative
               solutions.

2. To apply conflict management concepts, principles, strategies and techniques to one's own workplace conflict.

3. To identify possible integrative 'solution spaces' for collaborative resolution of conflict.

4. To map and apply collaborative strategies and techniques to get to those integrative spaces.

Additional Outcomes

5. To examine one's own behavior as a contributing factor in the process and outcomes of conflict.

6. To write clearly and succinctly about conflict in a way that brings clarity to one’s workplace conflict situation.

7. To develop a familiarity with some of the research and writers on conflict management.

8. To collaborate freely with class colleagues on items #2, #3 and #4 in an open forum.

9. To develop a sense of humor and perspective about our own conflicts.

Pre-work ready for first meeting:

You will need to purchase Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury, order thru Amazon, second hand books for cheap price. Campus bookstore It may also be available new in town.

1) Read

a) Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury, The Problem and Separating People from Problems chapter

b) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-secrets-of-storytelling

2) Write

A central part of the class is the development of your own conflict case study. You will need to think about a conflict situation at work that you can use as an on-going study and writing project for the class. Each week you will explore a different aspect of your conflict situation that is connected to the material we are studying. See below for examples of how this will be done. This situation must be sufficiently complex to sustain an extended analysis for over six weeks. It needs to be between you and another person at work. You have a couple of weeks before class to think about various conflicts you currently have or have had in a work situation in the past. We will be using these student projects as part of our class discussions and drawing lessons from them connected to the points we are studying each week. Think of it as your own personal case study. You may change the names and the departments if you are concerned about public discussion. Consider this carefully, you may want to list several before deciding on the one you want to use. Will the case be deep enough and complex enough for you to examine it from multiple aspects? I would prefer that the conflict be currently active but it need not be.

Here are some brief examples of conflicts that learners from past classes used:

The conflict is over how to best lead and get others involved in the religious education program of the church. I think both Susan and I would have agreed that we needed to provide leadership and be effective at getting others involved; we could agree on the ‘what’ we needed to do. The conflict arose over ‘how’ to get this done. Ultimately, three recurring themes led to on-going conflict between the two of us. These themes are: 1) working together to plan items before taking them to a larger volunteer base, 2) executing action plans to which we committed, and 3) exchanging in open and honest communication.
For much of the first eighteen months that we worked together, Sam and I were both frustrated and unsatisfied with our roles in city government, yet we could not visualize the possibility of collaborative, joint solution for our roles. It’s not that we weren’t intelligent enough to come up with a better way; it was that we couldn’t visualize anything different, because we weren’t willing to acknowledge the fact that there was indeed conflict between us. We made every attempt to remain socially appropriate and not hurt each other’s feelings publicly because we both believed it was the right thing to do. Instead of identifying a way that we could work together to both accomplish our goals, a power struggle often ensued as Sam and I both clumsily negotiated what we both believed to be our “individual space” and became frustrated when one party stepped over the boundaries into the other’s territory. At the time, neither one of us could have truly identified what the source of conflict was between us.
The conflict between the two of us began when the selection of the first community grant award recipients was made and David failed to provide me with the information I needed the following day. I was unable to move forward on our communication plan and specifically, the news release process as we had discussed. My goal was to get the news releases submitted in a timely manner and I was unable to do so without the necessary information from David. Originally, David and I agreed upon a communication plan which we felt would best promote the community grant program and the Alliant Energy Foundation’s support of non-profit organizations. David wanted to get more personal visibility in the community as the corporation’s connection for area non-profits. His goal was to promote the work of the foundation and to gain visibility. He wanted to be recognized as the “face” of the Foundation by the non-profit directors, the media and community members.
The conflict issue was whether or not Senior Associates would continue to offer the Senior’s Initiative program. The two main parties to the conflict were me and the president of the Senior’s Associates. My position was the program should be maintained to support the and though not vocalized, to maintain my role in the organization. The president’s position was to eliminate the program to free up resources to aggressively pursue expansion of other senior programs.
The basic conflict is over the issue of the installation of a new machine called a Balancator into the shipping area. Roy’s original position was that he would like to leave his area alone and have us install the machine somewhere else. My original position was that I would like to get the machine in as soon as possible.

Week One:

Class design and structure

Discussion of articles and Getting to Yes selections

Discussion of the real life work case paper for next week

Self-assessment of conflict styles

Next week:

Read:

1) Thomas pp.652-663 (stop at end of column A)

2) Getting to Yes, Focus on Interests, Not Positions, chapter

3) http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interest-based_bargaining/?nid=1283

4) http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/facts_values/?nid=1233

Write:

Restorying the real life conflict story based on

1) Figure One in Thomas 2 pages double spaced featuring the main characters and plot

2) Then 3 pages double spaced summarizing the conflict into Goal/Interest conflicts, Cognitive/Judgmental Conflicts, Normative Conflicts (basically 1 page each per category)

3) Then 2 pages double spaced assessing the degree of integrative (collaborative) perception by yourself and the other party (1 page each per party)

Review Getting to Yes slide show

Week Two

Restorying the real life conflict story

Discuss and review the three readings

Prepare for next phase of real life case analysis

Next week:

Read:

1) Thomas pp.663-677 (stop at top of column B)

2) Getting to Yes, selection on Invent Options for Mutual Gain

Write:

Add to real life conflict story:

1) Analyze both parties approach to the conflict based on figures 5 and 6, this should reflect a deepened understanding from part three of last week’s paper. Double spaced 3 pages – 1.5 for each party

2) Using Figure 7 assess the distributive settlement range possibilities and issues for both parties 3 pages double spaced – 1.5 page per party

3) Finally using Tables 2 and 3, discuss both distributive and integrative tactics employed by both parties. Double spaced 3 pages , 1.5 per party

Week Three

Restory the real life conflict story

Discuss and review readings

Prepare for next phase of real life case analysis

Next week:

Read:

1) Thomas pp.677-686

2) Read Jordan's Summary of Glasl's stages

Write:

1) Go back and re-describe the plot of the conflict using Glasl escalation/ de-escalation frameworks - reference both the Glasl material for this. Focus on the specific strategies and tactics that lead to either escalation or de-escalation of the conflict. Connect the specific behaviors in your story with the specific characteristics of each stage of escalation – double space 3 pages

2) Discuss the rational/instrumental issues in terms of beneficiary and time horizon frameworks for both parties – double space 4 pages 2 for each party.

Week Four

Restory the real life conflict story

Discuss and review readings, focus on escalation/de-escalation

Prepare for next phase of real life case analysis

Next Week

Read

1) Thomas pp. 686 – 703

Write:

1) For your conflict story, using Table 9 in Thomas discuss and analyze variables shaping rational / instrumental reasoning with focus on integrative incentives and the variables shaping normative reasoning including collaborative norms and precepts. Again be specific in making the connection between your situation and the categories in Table 9. Double space 6 pages.

This material may help you better understand the readings and assignment. These take a moment to download so be patient:

View this as you listen: Week Five Structural Variables SlideShow

Week Five

Restory the real life conflict story

Discuss and review readings

Prepare for next phase of real life case analysis

Next week

Read: Carefully review Table 7 in Thomas (685-686), before reading Hill and Aibel

1) Non-adversarial mediation, Richard Hill

2) Mediation works, Howard Aibel

Write: Discuss how the use of a third party either managerial or consultative might affect the conflict. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the use of a third party relative to your situation. Using the criteria in Thomas' Table 7, describe how the use of a third party intervention would address normative and rational/instrumental systemic criteria for conflict management. Double space 4 pages.

Week Six

Discuss and review readings on Mediation. Q and A on the final paper.

Next Week

Read, prepare and write your analysis of the Case Study. This is an opportunity to practice what you know to another conflict story and to refine your conflict management analysis. It will require that you exercise some imagination in developing a likely trajectory of the conflicts in the Case Study. The Case Study writing is also excellent review of what you have learned to date in preparation for the final paper. It carries significant point value. Download and read the Case Study Scenario, then write a paper using the Case Study Prompts. Paper should run about 12 - 14 pages double spaced.

The Case Study Scenario

The Case Study Prompts

Week Seven

In depth discussion and analysis of Case Study Scenario

Next Week

Read

1) Getting to Yes, finish reading

Write: Finish final paper on your conflict story by integrating and re-telling the story based on the papers written the first five weeks. The integrated paper should display an increased level of sophistication in the description and analysis of the conflict based on the class readings, discussions and case studies.

Week Eight

Hand in final paper

Finish Getting to Yes, pp. 95 to end

Celebrate our collaborative efforts

Evaluation Criteria

Participation up to 25 pts per week, eight weeks 200 points

Project Papers up to 25 pts each, six papers 150 points

Case Study Paper 50 points

Final Paper 100 points

Total 500 points

Grading Scale

A = 500-450

B = 449-400

C = 399-350

F = less than 350

Final Paper for Conflict Management Class

1. Basic Background

Introduce the main characters and provide whatever background information you think the reader needs to understand the context of your conflict story. Such information may include, but need not be limited to, names, occupations/duties, organizational units/functions, formal structural relationships, informal relationships affecting the story, etc. You may use charts if you find that helpful.

2. The Conflict Issue(s) and original positions

Describe for the reader the conflict issue in one brief, terse, compact sentence (ok, but no more than three sentences. Also give an equally compact description of the main parties’ original positions on the issue.

3. The Conflict Story

Relate as fully as needed the detailed story of the conflict in chronological order. Use names, time frames, basic actions/conversations, reactions/responses, etc. As you describe this story apply either phase analysis or Glasl’s escalation framework in your account. Apply only the minimum of other analysis to get the story told. Tell the story all the way through as far as it went or as far as it has gone so far.

4. The Conflict Elements

Give a thorough account of the conflict elements for the main parties to the dispute. Analyze each parties’ goal/interest, cognition/judgement, and normative/value elements. Show how these elements lead to the conflict. Discuss how each parties’ position(s) reflect their ICN concerns.

5. The Strategic and Tactical intent and behaviors

Analyze each parties’ initial strategic assessment of likely outcomes (integrative or distributive) – give evidence for your assessment based on the specific kinds of behaviors that both parties engaged in. Use the two dimensional model that we relied on so heavily in class to help the reader understand the changing dynamics of the conflict. Be sure to keep the ICN elements visible in your analysis. If the parties did not or have not yet reached a collaborative solution then assess the distributive settlement ranges possibilities for each party. As part of your analysis discuss the rational instrumental issues in terms of the beneficiary (three kinds) and the time frame (2 kinds) for each party as appropriate.

6. Collaboration assessment

Analyze those aspects of the conflict that make a collaborative outcome more or less likely. Follow the categories laid out on Table 9. Use as many of the categories as you think are helpful for the reader to get a clear picture. At a minimum, discuss some “location” factors for each of the three theoretical variables.

7. Intervening for collaborative outcomes

Finally assume you have been chosen to intercede to help the parties reach a collaborative solution. What kind of actions would you take to increase the likelihood of an integrative solution? You may make suggestions for intervention at any stage of the conflict. You may use either process or strategic interventions. Using the criteria in Thomas' Table 7, describe how the use of a third party intervention would address normative and rational/instrumental systemic criteria for conflict management.Defend your course of actions.