Developing an Effective Program of Conflict Management: Ten Principles

Over the years, as we have worked with complex disputes, certain basic themes have surfaced repeatedly in response to one difficult situation after another. This chapter presents ten principles that we have found helpful in dealing with public conflicts. The principles may seem obvious and simplistic, but we are amazed at how often they are overlooked by capable people in the midst of conflict. Managers handle disputes every day, but like other human beings, they tend to get caught up in the escalating spiral of conflict. They become personally involved in the emotional transactions that naturally occur, and they become less capable of using common sense. These ten principles can help the manager focus on productive strategies for resolving differences.

Principle 1. Conflicts Are a Mix of Procedures, Relationships, and Substance

It is natural for people involved in a dispute to assume that they can reach a resolution by finding a technical solution to the substantive problem at issue. But equal attention must be given to human relationships and the procedures people use to work out their disagreements. Efforts to solve complicated problems by technical criteria alone cause more conflicts than they resolve. Technical people are usually most comfortable working in their fields of special competence, and they are often uneasy when faced with “people problems”. Nobody likes to be confronted with distrust and even hatred (if the conflict has gone on long enough), especially when defending a position that is based on solid facts. Yet human feelings are just as real as scientific data, and emotions condition the way people handle information. Decisions are made and battles fought not by numbers and computers but by complicated and unpredictable human beings.

Human relationships were far down the list of priorities demanding the attention of company management planning to open a new Wyomingⁱ coal mine. They had enough problems with engineering difficulties and financial matters, and besides, the nearby town would welcome a new business and new jobs in the area. Which was true. The town did need new jobs, but the residents had no information about the dimensions of the project and the size of the work force. They feared the effects of explosive growth in their community, and they resented not being told what was in store for them.

When the company heard that some residents opposed the project, it decided to send its public relations team from company headquarters in Houstonⁱⁱ to solve the problem. The company representatives sat down with some of the business leaders in town who had made speeches supporting construction of the new mine. Over a congenial lunch, they decided that the town would appreciate a gift of new lights for the softballⁱⁱⁱ field. The community experts flew home to Houston confident that they had successfully laid public opposition to rest. Two days later, the weekly edition of the local newspaper carried an irate editorial and letters to the editor that were even angrier than before the visit.

By avoiding the people who were concerned about the mine and failing to investigate the reasons why they were upset, the public relations team had confirmed people’s worst fears about the procedures the company would use in dealing with the community. Residents who had been indifferent to the controversy before the visit were given something simple and tangible to worry about. Even some supporters of the new mine became concerned that the company was unwilling to work with the community to solve problems its activities would cause.

Throughout this book, we emphasize the importance of following in sequence the steps of a conflict management plan, carefully assessing human factors as well as technical issues, bringing the parties into the plan early, and designing a strategy for the particular circumstances. If people are consulted as the plan develops and asked for suggestions to make it work better, they will be much more likely to trust the plan when it is applied.

As the process unfolds, a manager must also be sensitive to changes. Additional time may be needed for parties to educate each other or to work with their constituency groups. The person in charge must continue to check with parties to see whether they feel the process is fair and whether there are ways it might be improved. The manager should always ask, What is the most productive way to proceed?

At the same time that a manager is evaluating and refining the process, he or she must also attend to relationships among parties, asking such questions as: Are they able to work together? How can they gain a better understanding of each other? What changes are necessary to make interactions more productive? Should ground rules be adopted to guide how parties talk to one another?