Conflict Resolution and Defunding the police

FACILITATED INTERVENTION

By Dr. Janice Barrett

• You may become involved in conflict intervention by:

1) serving as a third party yourself,

2) assisting your work associates, family members, or friends to find qualified third parties, or

3) asking for third party assistance for your own conflicts.

• The choice is not whether you will be involved in others' conflicts, but how competently you will serve as a third party.

• The goal of all intervention is to assist in a transformation of the conflict elements. The transformation may take any forms. For example, intervention may alter the power balance, change the expression of conflict, help parties change their goals, or change perception of scarce rewards, interdependence, or interference.

• Competent intervention transforms the conflict so parties can solve it.

Third Party Intervention

• Intervention modes differ according to the degree to which conflict parties determine the final outcome.

• Degree to which the conflict parties determine the solutions to their conflicts:

Representative modes of Intervention:

1. facilitation

2. mediation

3. counseling and therapy

4. organizational development

5. conciliation

6. quasi-judicial bodies

7. informal tribunals

8. arbitration of all types

9. criminal and civil justice system

Unstructured Intervention

• Indirect cues indicating that your help may be needed are ones such as these:

1. The person spends more time with you than usual, asking for advice and sharing feelings.

2. Private information is shared.

3. Your acquaintance indicates that a decision is impending and that the decision is crucial.

4. The person makes you understand that life is not smooth, distress is present, or that things seem out of control.

5. Friends may make dramatic, noticeable changes.

• Such excuses and justifications are indicators that a conflict is in operation. Excuses are socially approved ways to relieve oneself of responsibility when one's conduct is questioned. Constant use of excuses may indicate the desire or need for third-party help.

• Justifications offer socially approved words asserting that the act performed had a positive value even though others see the act as negative. Examples of typical justifications are a denial of injury to the other person, denial that anyone rational could disagree, asserting that others do it, too , so it cannot be seen as bad, or an appeal to a person's good feelings about the injured party.

• It is important to determine what the parties are communicating about their conflict by constant use of excuses and justifications. This kind of communication may be an indirect request for assistance, since excuses and justifications seldom are used in well functioning, collaborative conflicts. A third party may be able to change the structure of the conflict informally after attending to cues that help is wanted and needed.

The Manager as Third Party

• Many opportunities for conflict arise naturally in organizations, stemming from division of labor, decision-making practices, delegation of authority, scarcity as a result of cutbacks, attributing conflicts to personality characteristics or "problem employees," triangulation, and power imbalances.

• Managers often become involved in conflicts without a request from the parties involved. They may have power over the parties, and almost always operate without formal guidelines except when following a defined corrective procedure that might lead to termination of the employee.

• Managers use techniques ranging from directive, power-over tactics to collaborative, problem-solving tactics that involve the parties in the dispute. Managers are not neutral third parties, often having opinions of their own about what should be done. They not only define and shape the conflict, they are also often involved in the circumstances that originally produced the conflict.

• In one study, managers who took a low-key, mediational role were more likely to reach a compromise solution and were judged by others to move more fair than those who took the role of decision-maker, inquisitor, judge, investigator, restructurer, or advisor. Managers who take the mediator role often serve as a liaison people between groups in the organization, thus informing themselves about the needs and interests of several different groups. Managers are receiving training in dispute resolution and group facilitation skills.

The Personnel Officer as Third Party

• Functions: the role of grievance advisor, the person who listens to a complaint from someone in the organization and advises that person on steps to take to address the situation. Since the personnel officer works for the organization, the role is one of problem-solver and conflict manager, not as advocate for the aggrieved party alone.

• In the role of advisor, the officer should:

1) determine whether the problem at hand constitutes an emergency or crisis deserving immediate intervention,

2) determine whose interests are at stake and what those interests are,

3) determine who "owns" this dispute - who is responsible for this subject or this problem ,

4) determine what options are open to each person involved in this dispute and communicate those options to them,

5) determine whether to seek outside advice, such as from an attorney or other professional.

Structured Intervention

• A continuum from very casual and unstructured, such as friendship conversations about problems, to highly formalized, legal or governmental structures with defined roles and expectations.

Consultation

• Consultation involves working with the conflict parties by directing meetings and by making suggestions that will help the system move toward more productive relations. It comes in two major structural forms: from within the organization or from outside the organization.

• Checklist for criteria for third party intervention when one is a member of the organization. Consultants serve best who have:

1. high professional expertise in social processes;

2. low power over the fate of the principals;

3. high control over confrontation setting and processes;

4. moderate knowledge about principals, issues, and background factors; and

5. neutrality or balance with respect to substantive outcome, personal relationships, and conflict-resolution methodology.

• Further cautions apply to outside consultants. They must avoid developing a stake in the specific outcome, remain experts on conflict processes instead of juvenile probation, rapid market growth, legislative lobbying, land-use planning, student-teacher relationships, classroom practices, curriculum development, wildlife management, or other specific content areas. If the outside consultant becomes a real or imagined expert in specific content, the primary focus on processes of conflict management may be forgotten.

Mandated versus Voluntary Intervention

• Mediation, arbitration, and adjudication may be either mandated or voluntary.

• All intervenes, whether mandated or not, serve at least the following five functions:

1. Transfer information: The interveners act as go-betweens, messengers, conciliator, analyst, counselor, ombudsman, and mediator.

2. Inform choices: The interveners contribute knowledge to help parties make a mutually acceptable choice.

3. Promote certain kinds of choices: Interveners promote choices that will last, that are practical, and will keep the disputants out of further conflict.

4. Make choices: Interveners make choices about process, sometimes about content, and about how to frame or word the options created.

5. Implement choices: Sometimes interveners take responsibility for enforcing the results of decisions, such as parents, judges, law enforcement officers, and teachers.

Mediation

• Mediation is a process in which an intervener helps parties to change their positions so they can reach agreement. In more elaborated form, mediation is the "art of changing people's positions with the explicit aim of acceptance of a package put together by both sides, with the mediator as a listener, the suggestor, the formulator of final agreement to which both sides have contributed" (Alper and Nichols).

• As Keltner (1983) says, "Your job is to facilitate the parties to the dispute to reach an agreement themselves."

• The mediator confers with each party before the first meeting, gains the confidence of each party, and learns about the nature of the dispute. The mediator is in charge of the arrangements for the meeting and controls the process of negotiation between the parties. The mediator is not only a "notetaker"; but is active in the process, constantly persuading the parties toward agreement. The mediator has to be a good listener at all times.

• The process of mediation assumes that conflict is inevitable and resolvable and that parties can be moved to agreement.

• Mediation brings three distinct advantages to the management of conflict. First, because it relies on the parties' active negotiation and involvement, it promotes a mutual stake in the resolution; solutions derived through the process are more likely to be carried out by the parties. The agreement is theirs not imposed, and as a result there is no "loser" who feels compelled to strike back. The parties created the conflict, and they work for its management. Their active involvement is a source of mutual empowerment; they take ownership of the conflict and, with the mediator's assistance, keep some limits on the process.

• Second, since mediated agreements represent work on the part of all concerned, the solutions have a higher probability of being integrative and containing elements of creativity. Rather than choosing between two discrete choices of interlocked, non-negotiable positions, new solutions can be generated.

• Mediation is a flexible process that is equally adaptable to many types of conflict. It has been used successfully in such diverse arenas as family disputes, labor-management impasses, and international conflicts.

• Successful mediation typically follows this sequence:

1) agenda building phase,

2) information exchange,

3) negotiation phase, and

4) a resolution phase.

• Limitations to the use of mediation as a settlements option do exist. First, not all conflict parties will agree to work through their conflict with the "enemy." Second, mediation may not be appropriate for certain types of relationships. Mediation involves considerable commitment to work on the conflict, and some relationships cannot respond to such work. Many parties are not prepared to reinvest in a relationship that has been problematic for them; they would rather try other routes to settlement or just continue the conflict. Finally, the dispute may be a type in which involvement in mediation is not worth the effort.

Arbitration

• Arbitration comes into use when the conflict participants mutually empower a third party to decide the outcome of their conflict. They assume that they cannot resolve their conflict unassisted and that a neutral third person is needed. As a result, they mutually empower an arbitrator to solve their conflict.

• When the parties contractually agree to an arbitration, the results of the arbitrated judgment are enforceable in court. This process is called binding arbitration; the judgment is final. Voluntary or nonbinding arbitration is sometimes used when the parties will not agree to binding arbitration.

• Arbitration has some distinct features that make it useful. First, unlike adjudication, both parties enter into arbitration voluntarily. Second, it keeps one party from using passive aggressive or impasse tactics on the other - sooner or later the issue will be resolved. Third, in many cases the arbitrator has special training in the content area of the dispute, such as in contract arbitration. Fourth, arbitration is readily available for use in situations in which the participants experience a communication breakdown and are no longer able to solve their own problems. Finally, arbitration is a process that can be used for a wide variety of content areas, ranging from contract disputes, medical malpractice, or landlord-tenant conflicts to domestic relations.

• Arbitration does have some limitations. First it tends to resolve conflicts solely on a content basis; typically arbitration does not address the relational aspects of the dispute. Often, if the parties can reach some accord on their relationship, the content issues can be worked out. Second, arbitration reinforces the assumption that the parties are not capable of learning to manage their own difficulties - that a third party has to manage any solution. Third, it reinforces a win-lose style of thinking in which escalation is used as a legitimate tactic since intransigence automatically brings in an outsider.

• Arbitration is still a widely used conflict management alternative because it places boundaries on parties' choices, thus binding them procedurally for purposes of resolution. The prerequisite that parties agree to arbitrate enhances the chances for productive conflict management.

Adjudication

• Adjudication is a process in which parties go before a judge or jury. Adjudication assumes that parties are unable to solve their own conflicts.

• Litigating a dispute is both an alternative to negotiating it and at the same time a way to force its negotiation.

• Adjudication brings a number of positive features to conflict management. It gives access to a resolution process to all; as such, it serves as a power-balancing mechanism. For example, individuals can sue large corporations. "Equal protection of the law." A second positive feature of adjudication is that it provides rules for fairness such as the admission of evidence. Third, use of professionals to speak for the conflict parties is an advantage for people who need assistance in preparation or presentation of their case. Finally, adjudication serves as a backup for other processes of conflict management. When arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and negotiation fail to produce agreement, the disputants can go to court.

• The judicial system has some limitations in dealing with conflict. First, it has been over utilized and, as a consequence, is overburdened and misused. Another disadvantage of using the legal system for conflict resolution is that conflict parties no longer make their own decisions.

• Once a suit or petition has been filed with the court, lawyers negotiate with one another, often instructing the litigants to not talk with one another. In this structure, it is easy for the litigants to set into motion a struggle that the lawyers act out. The original conflict metamorphoses into a conflict between the two lawyers. The prime players become the attorneys, who negotiate with one another, trying to estimate what the judge will do.

• A final disadvantage of adjudication is that the adversarial system operates on a win-lose set of conflict assumptions that encourages escalation tactics. The gathering of evidence for one side of the conflict disregards the relational, common interests of both parties. Parties cooperate in following the rules of procedure, but this level of commonalty does not open up many potentially creative outcomes. The escalatory, win-lose atmosphere often is difficult to disengage from, once it has been set into motion.

The intervention process

• The intervention process proceeds from an identification of the intervention needs, encompasses a decision to intervene, involves a negotiation of role, necessitates a conflict assessment, utilizes an intervention design, activates actual intervention tactics, and finally, ends with an assessment of the intervention.

Identify Intervention Needs

1. The conflict is urgent and time is short.

2. Everyone is either an advocate or has declared for one side or the other.

3. No one can be found who will function as referee.

4. The scale or complexity is beyond the range of resources available.

5. No trust exists in internal resources.

Decide to intervene

• The consultant and client explore the appropriateness of intervention, suitability of the consultant, and expectation of both the conflict parties and the consultant. Such explorations usually take more than one meeting and cannot be taken lightly.

Negotiate a role

• Before you make a commitment to help, answer the following questions:

1. Are they ready for a third party? What evidence do you have to indicate such readiness?

2. How certain are you that your help has been requested? If the request has been indirect, clarify your understanding of the request.

3. How do you know that they want you to help?

4. What skills prepare you to help them? Can you help best by referring them to someone else?

5. Is your role free and flexible enough so you can help, or are you biased, committed to one of the parties, grinding your own ax, or unable to help because of time, position, or other matters?

6. Can you say no? If not, then you are probably too involved in the conflict to be an effective helper.

• Think about the consequences of your intervention.

• If you choose to take a role in the conflict after all, even if the role is informal and nonspecific, take special care to retain your neutrality. Informal third parties often take sides. If one of the parties succeeds in allying with the helper, the resulting alliance restructures the power, lessens the other side's power in the conflict, and creates a new issue in the conflict - that of unfair bonding.

• Refusing to take sides can result in :

1) your not being involved in the conflict or

2) your preparation to be an effective change agent.

• If you're going to intervene, clarify any change in your role from your habitual role with the conflict parties.

• Be certain the parties want to bring in someone to help them manage their conflict. Any time a third party enters into an existing relationship, the relationship is changed. Be careful that their successful conflict management is not built at the expense of the third party - they may cast you as the enemy, thus finding a temporary bonding with each other and excluding you.

Assess the Conflict

• Assessment provides information so the formal or informal consultant can decide whether to reduce conflict if there is too much or to promote conflict if there is too little.

1. Chance of success: Does the conflict offer some hope of success, given the intervener's time, energy, skill, and the funds available?

2. Divisibility: Can one intervene in only one issue or segment that might be the most manageable?

3. Timing: Is it too early - are the parties hurting enough to welcome intervention? Or is it too late - has it gone too far?

4. Intervention Options: What possible approaches could be used for this particular situation?

Design the intervention

• Intervention techniques should be matched to the needs of the conflict parties and should suit the training and expertise of the third party.

• Intervention designs are numerous, ranging from mediation between parties, consultation, arbitration, training workshops that teach conflict management skills, and coaching managers to function as problem solvers. One useful approach is to help participants change the contextual factors that encourage the conflict rather than working on personal change of the participants.

Choose Intervention Tactics

• Effective intervention necessitates:

1) excellent third party communication skills,

2) third party control of the process, and

3) transformation of the elements of the conflict.

Communication Skills:

• The success of intervention depends on one's abilities to communicate.

• Third parties need skills in empathic understanding, congruence, openness and genuineness, nonverbal sensitivity, active listing, and persuasive ability.

• Step of listening:

1) Reflect the feelings of the participants before you paraphrase or ask questions about the content they are communicating. One of the functions of the third party is to help in the constructive expression of anger and ventilation of feelings.

2) Restate or paraphrase what you hear without adding new material of your own.

3) As open-ended questions to clarify the communication.

4) Clarify options the parties express.

5) make suggestions, give information or advice when warranted in the process.

Process Control:

• An intervener intervenes - alters the process of the conflict.

• Third parties exercise process control at two levels, overall structure of interaction and specific communication exchanges. The intervener sets the meeting times and also limits the agenda so the parties will discuss the issue at hand.

• The intervener guides the specific communication behavior, by using (1) power balancing, (2) fractionation, (3) refraining and, (4) communication guidelines. Power can be balanced by equalizing the participation of the participants.

• The third party also fine-tunes the interaction by fractionation and it assures the participants that all issues will be heard, but insists on taking them one at a time.

• The intervener also reframes events for the participants. Reframing involves a recategorization of the explanation someone gives for actions of the other party.

• The intervener helps the participants with communication guidelines for the interaction. These guidelines help the parties move toward productive management of the conflict.

1. Be descriptive rather than judgmental.

2. Be specific.

3. Deal with things that can be changed instead of "givens."

4. Give feedback when it is requested.

5. Give feedback as close as possible to the behavior being discussed.

6. Speak only for yourself.

7. Check your explanations with the other party.

Transformation of Conflict Elements

• The intervener should be eclectic. The creative third party needs to have a repertoire of skills available for use as the situation demands.

Assess the intervention and Exit

• At the conclusion of an effective intervention, the third party assess the utility of the intervention. If it has been a formal intervention, the clients are asked about their satisfaction with the process and the outcome.

• Once the work is completed, the third party exists from the system. In both formal and informal intervention, the goal is to train the parties so they can manage their own relations.

Source of material in this handout: Hocker & Wilmot (1998). Interpersonal Conflict, 5th edition. McGraw - Hill; Boston, MA. chapter 9, pp. 236-259.