Principle 2. To Find a Good Solution, You Have to Understand the Problem

Instead of acting on assumptions and the stereotypes that commonly creep into controversial situations, an intervener should begin by untangling the muddle of emotions, perceptions, needs, and cross-purposes that surround the issues. The mining company in the previous example failed to look beneath the surface and find out what people in the community were really concerned about. As a result, the company did the one thing that would most infuriate everyone except the softball team and its business boosters. Ten years later this incident is still a favorite story throughout the entire state to illustrate industry’s lack of knowledge about small communities.

In another situation, a planner could not understand why local residents objected so strenuously to the construction of a new office building in a commercial park adjacent to their neighborhood. Citizens had not complained about any of the other buildings that had been added to the park, and the developer thought he had been particularly sensitive to neighborhood concerns.

The citizens appeared in droves at city council meetings and inundated planning staff members with calls to register their opposition. The planning department suggested that the neighborhood association invite the developer and the planning staff to one of its meetings to review the proposal together. The planner thought he could resolve the conflict if the community had a chance to see how attractive the building was going to be. The developer prepared a series of slides to illustrate the new facility and focused his presentation on all the extra services he was prepared to perform.

Soon after the meeting began, the planner realized that the office building was not the real problem. Rather, the citizens were concerned about the dramatic increase in traffic on their residential streets created by the commercial park in general. Citizens’ efforts to persuade the city to install stop signs and redirect traffic away from residential streets had been ignored. The only recourse left seemed to be to challenge the construction of the next office building to come up for review. The conflict was over how to handle the traffic, not whether a building should be constructed.

Time invested in understanding a situation pays off in increased productivity when the parties meet to resolve their differences. Up-front preparation enables the parties to reach an agreement more efficiently and avoid traps caused by not understanding the substance of the problem or the sensitive dynamics of the controversy.

A manager assembles this information through visits with individuals directly affected by the dispute and with others who are less involved but who are well informed about the situation. By a combination of listening, cautious probing, and cross-checking with other sources, he or she attempts to understand what the parties are trying to accomplish and why. A manager defines the problem and identifies the affected parties, the important issues, the past and current dynamics among parties, and what the parties need from an agreement.

Principle 3. Take Time to Plan a Strategy

and Follow It Through

The bigger, nastier, and more public the controversy, the greater the pressure on a manager to resolve it quickly. But, especially in complicated high-pressure situations, it is essential to stop, think, and work out a strategy. Moving to a solution without a sound plan can delay progress and jeopardize success. A quick-fix approach is likely to produce a “Band-Aid solution” that will cover the wound temporarily but not heal it. The last thing managers who are up to their ears in problems want to hear is a suggestion that they take extra time to plan before conducting a program, but developing logical steps toward a solution will produce better results and save time in the long run.

Even in less urgent circumstances, people in an argument may fail to work out a sequence of steps to get them to their goal. Investors and planners in a large western city convened a group of leading citizens interested in developing the last large tract of available land in their downtown area. They intended to reach agreements on the type of development that should occur, but they found themselves talking about narrow issues, such as the types of roads that would be needed, before they had any idea of how the land would be used. The discussions floundered because no one proposed a process for moving the participants toward general agreements on an overall approach and then to specific components.

Although the precise form of a conflict management plan will be determined by the particular situation, a strategy should pay careful attention to the following management components: