The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING

  Several implications for training emerge from this discussion. First, let us briefly explore how the newly trained conflict resolver may act as a change agent within her own social system. Here I am referring to the issue of finding ways to change the system to which the newly trained conflict resolver returns.

  The question I address is, “How can the trained conflict resolver be an effective change agent?” A difficulty that people often experience after receiving training in a particular skill area is how to practice the new skills back in a setting that does not necessarily support developing those skills in the first place. How can we apply what we know about the change process to encourage changing a system to be more supportive of constructive conflict resolution skills?

  With this question in mind, we can apply the same three psychological principles involved in change to this application: create the motivation to change systemic conflict resolution skills, overcome people’s resistance to changing those skills, and generate commitment to constructive conflict resolution skills in future conflicts in the system.

  Thus, the person who strengthens his or her conflict resolution skills through training can be seen as a representative of the system whose conflict skills need strengthening. The person’s role is twofold: to acquire productive conflict skills and transfer those skills to the system that offered the resources for the individual to attend the training. This second role involves becoming a change agent.

  Generating Motivation

  To become a change agent after conflict training, one needs to identify where the system is in relation to strengthening its conflict resolution skills. We can assume that the act of undertaking training in this area is a sign of unfreezing from the current state. However, we must not confuse this sign with the system’s motivation to change. It is seductive to believe that by providing training to members, an organization will, on completion of the training, believe that it has become skilled in the area of training. We must also consider how to change the system that endorses the training. To begin this process, it is useful for the change agent to reflect on the nature of her own changes—how she may have moved closer to a desired future state with regard to conflict-handling skills.

  The skilled conflict resolver must also work at making salient to the system some desired future state, or change goal. This can be done by reflecting on the initial reasons for undertaking the training. These may include, for example, the desire to reduce divisiveness between professional staff and support staff. A way to create tension, then, would be to highlight the gaps between the current state of divisiveness and the desired future state, perhaps by articulating a sense of introspection about where the system currently is or posing questions about the current state to groups of stakeholders (perhaps the leadership of the organization, the two groups with a history of divisiveness, or one’s peers). From these activities, it is important to identify a group that, in the change agent’s judgment, demonstrates sufficient readiness for change: people who are most interested in strengthening their own skills in ways that the change agent has done. Stated prescriptively, he or she should find where there already exists some motivation and begin efforts there. Using Gladwell’s terminology, we want to find those who are conflict “mavens,” others, similarly inclined, who are strong at connecting appropriate people together, and “salespeople” who can broaden interest in such change.

  Identifying and Handling Resistance

  Many forces operate to move the individual and the social system back to the pretraining state, among them using the hierarchy and power structure to resolve conflict, leaders’ modeling of poor conflict-handling skills, and using verbal or physical threats or abuse to resolve issues. It is an important first step for the conflict resolver to be aware of (and not overwhelmed by) the power of those forces working to maintain the status quo. It is also difficult to anticipate all the manifestations of resistance that may arise. Nonetheless, the key idea to keep in mind is not how to prevent resistance from developing but rather how to recognize and handle it productively.

  One idea for doing this is to focus on how the conflict resolver himself is learning and changing, rather than focusing on how the other, or the system, needs to change. Schein (in Coutu, 2002) eloquently discusses the importance of this among change agents: unless they become willing to look at themselves and acknowledge their own anxieties, conflicts, and vulnerabilities (and strengths), then any efforts at changing the system will never take place. Second, change agents often devote too much attention and resources to those most resistant to a change, underemphasizing the degree of attention and support needed by the least resistant individuals and groups. Another way to look at this is to increase the level of support, attention, and resources to those whose motivation for change is already high. To some, preaching to the converted is redundant or a waste of energy. It can, though, play a valuable role in helping to spread the positive energy for change and thereby lessen the effects of negative forces against change. This embodies the notions that Gladwell speaks of in creating the tipping point, or the point at which the seesaw swings in the desired direction and the forces to go back are overwhelmed.

  Fostering Commitment

  Several ideas can be applied to generating commitment to changing a system’s conflict-handling skills. First, the change agent must create opportunities for key members of the system to participate in planning how their skills are to be strengthened. If, for example, the change agent must reduce intergroup conflict, she might engage members of both groups in strategizing effective ways of bringing parties together. Under the guidance of the conflict resolver, this type of session might serve to model effective conflict-handling skills and build some of the commitment needed for further strengthening the skills in the system.

  A related idea about generating commitment has to do with free choice. Choosing the level of involvement people wish to pursue in the change effort (and making that choice salient to them) contributes to commitment. In many social systems, especially in work settings, we come to believe that we are in an unpleasant situation by force. This is rarely the case. Reminding people about their choice in these matters can be freeing, both reducing resistance and generating commitment. Thus, if people do not want to participate in strengthening their conflict skills, the change agent should not mandate or force their participation. Such action merely leads to compliance and other increases in resistance.

  CONCLUSION

  It was my intent, in this chapter, to look at some of the linkages and interrelationships between conflict processes and change. I have discussed the bidirectional nature of the processes involved in change and conflict. My view is that any change process—at the individual, group, organizational, community, or societal level—finds conflict inherent in the process. Similarly, any conflict resolution process brings about change of some form between or within the parties in conflict.

  I have highlighted three important psychological components of the change process and how they influence the course of conflict. Motivation, resistance, and commitment are by no means the only psychological dynamics involved in change. It is my contention, though, that they are important enough to warrant further theorizing and empirical study as they relate to conflict and change. Furthermore, it would behoove the conflict resolution practitioner to work with these dynamics as they relate to changing a system to which they return after such training. Similarly, there is often meaningful change associated with enhanced conflict resolution skills training. In classes and workshops that I have been teaching at the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution and elsewhere, students often return to class and share experiences related to their practice with skills associated with productive conflict and how such practice has led to significant changes in their personal or professional relationships: something changed for them, and they notice a difference in the interactions they have in their personal and professional lives. Fi
nally, since the previous edition of this Handbook, I have noticed through my work with individuals and groups that there is a small but more frequent interest in, acceptance of, and eagerness to explore the connections between the difficult work of planned change and the productive use of conflict during change. I am encouraged by this and continue to do what I can to fuel this motivation.

  References

  Alinsky, S. Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage Books, 1971.

  Argyris, C. “Empowerment: The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Harvard Business Review, 1998, 76, 98–105.

  Bartunek, J. M. “The Multiple Cognitions and Conflicts Associated with Second Order Organizational Change.” In J. K. Murnighan (ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.

  Beckhard, R., and Harris, R. Managing Organizational Transitions. (2nd ed.) Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987.

  Bridges, W. Transitions. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980.

  Bridges, W. “Managing Organizational Transitions.” Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1986, 24–33.

  Brooks, R. “Those Were the Days Before We Had to Lay You Off—Gobbled Up in a Megamerger. CoreStates Sends Its People a Parting Gift.” Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1998.

  Burke, W. W. Organization Development: A Normative View. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987.

  Burke, W. W. Organization Change: Theory and Practice. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2011.

  Coch, L., and French, J.R.P. “Overcoming Resistance to Change.” Human Relations, 1948, 11, 512–532.

  Coleman, P. T. The Five Percent. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.

  CompStat. NYPD Official New York City Police Department Web site. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html./nypd/html./chfdept/compstat-process.html

  Connor, D. R. Managing at the Speed of Change. New York: Villard, 1992.

  Coutu, D. L. “The Anxiety of Learning.” Harvard Business Review, March 2002, 80(3), 100–106.

  Deci, E. Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. New York: Penguin, 1995.

  Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973.

  Fisher, R. “Fractionating Conflict.” In R. Fisher (ed.), International Conflict and Behavioral Science: The Craigville Papers. New York: Basic Books, 1964.

  Ford, Jeffrey D., and Ford, Laurie W. “Decoding Resistance to Change.” Harvard Business Review, 2009, 87(4), 99–104.

  Gladwell, M. The Tipping Point. New York: Little, Brown, 2002.

  Klein, G. “Some Notes on the Dynamics of Resistance to Change: The Defender Role.” In G. Watson (ed.), Concepts for Social Change. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, 1966.

  Levinson, H. “Easing the Pain of Personal Loss.” Harvard Business Review, 1972, 50(5), 80–88.

  Lewin, K. “Group Decision and Social Change.” In E. E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, and E. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1947.

  Lindaman, E., and Lippitt, R. Choosing the Future You Prefer. Washington, D.C.: Development Publications, 1979.

  Lippitt, R., Watson, J., and Westerley, B. The Dynamics of Planned Change. Orlando, Fla.: Harcourt Brace, 1958.

  Marcus, E. C. “Measuring Change in Evolving Organizational Cultures.” Paper presented at the ninth annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Nashville, Tenn., 1994.

  Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., and Norcross, J. C. “In Search of How People Change: Applications to Addictive Behaviors.” American Psychologist, 1992, 47(9), 1102–1114.

  Salancik, G. “Commitment Is Too Easy.” Organizational Dynamics, 1977, 6, 62–80.

  Schaffer, R., and Siegel, W. “Rapid Results: Unlocking the Door to Major Change.” Consulting to Management, December 2005, 16(4), 12–18.

  Tunstall, B. Disconnecting Parties: Managing the Bell System Break-Up. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.

  Weisbord, M. R. Productive Workplaces: Organizing and Managing for Dignity, Meaning, and Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.

  Zander, A. “Resistance to Change: Its Analysis and Prevention.” Advanced Management Journal, 1950, 4(5), 9–11.

  CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

  CHANGING MINDS Persuasion in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution

  Alison Ledgerwood

  Shannon P. Callahan

  Shelly Chaiken

  The focus of this chapter is on persuasion and attitude change in negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution. Persuasion refers to the principles and processes by which people’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are formed, modified, or resist change in the face of others’ attempts at influence. These attempts are designed to convince targets of persuasion to accept a position on some issue that differs from their current position.

  Importantly, persuasion is distinct from coercion in that persuasion involves influence designed to change people’s minds, whereas coercion involves influence designed to change people’s behavior (with little regard for whether they have actually changed their minds). For example, in a conflict between labor and management, company employees might attempt to persuade the managers to raise wages by pointing out that higher wages will increase motivation and commitment among workers, thereby benefiting the company as a whole. Alternatively, they might attempt to coerce the managers to raise wages by threatening to strike if their demands are not met. Research on social influence has established that if public compliance is not accompanied by private acceptance (in this case, truly believing that there is good reason to raise wages), the outcomes of influence are typically ephemeral and unstable. (See Eagly and Chaiken, 1993.) Persuasion is therefore a critical tool in creating lasting settlements between parties in conflict.

  Although participants in negotiations often bring an impressive amount of implicit knowledge to the conflict resolution setting, an increased understanding of the principles and processes that underlie persuasion can help improve the processes and outcomes of a negotiation. In this chapter, we review major theories and findings in the field of persuasion, summarize relevant research in negotiation and intergroup settings, and discuss practical implications for conflict resolution.

  AN OVERVIEW OF PERSUASION THEORY AND RESEARCH

  Although theory and research on persuasion have been brought to bear on the study of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution, they remain largely disconnected fields. As Malhotra and Bazerman (2008) noted, “The vast majority of writing on negotiation has ignored the element of interpersonal influence . . . [which] seems to be a glaring omission” (p. 510). In this chapter, we seek to bridge this gap by describing relevant theory and research in persuasion that has important and useful implications for research and practice in conflict settings.

  We begin by providing a brief, foundational overview of persuasion theory and research. After illustrating the research paradigm that has guided both historical and contemporary approaches to persuasion, we discuss a broad theoretical perspective on persuasion (called a dual-process perspective) that distinguishes between two basic ways in which people think.

  The Paradigmatic Persuasion Experiment

  Before we discuss theory and research in persuasion, it is important to understand how research is typically conducted in this area of social psychology and how we can (and cannot) relate the results obtained in such settings to real-world situations such as negotiation. In this section, we describe the prototypical persuasion experiment, highlight key differences between the laboratory and the real world, and discuss how persuasion research has addressed this gap.

  The prototypical persuasion study takes place in a university laboratory and investigates how exposure to persuasive messages influences an audience’s attitudes, beliefs, or behavioral intentions. These studies typically involve a message (information about a given issue), a source (the communicator of the message), and a recipient or target (the person receiving the persuasiv
e message). Researchers then typically measure recipients’ attitudes toward the issue discussed and often perceptions of the source or freely generated thoughts about the issue. Most notably, such studies examine the extent to which message recipients’ attitudes move toward the position advocated in the message.

  The issues addressed in such paradigmatic persuasion studies are wide ranging, including foreign affairs (e.g., whether Israel should withdraw from the West Bank); political and social issues (affirmative action, welfare policies); business and government proposals (retirement benefits, corporate mergers); and a host of more mundane issues of relevance to audience members’ work, school, or personal lives. The traditional paradigm allows experimenters to study how aspects of the source, the message, and the recipient influence attitude change. For example, research has established that persuasion tends to increase as the perceived trustworthiness, expertise, and likability of a source increase or as the number and strength of the arguments presented increase. (See Crano and Prislin, 2008; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993.)