How to Manage Difficult Situations and Decisions: Conflict Resolution

Abstract

Conflict is inevitable. It is a normal part of everyday life whether at home or in the workplace. Despite the prevailing belief that all conflict is negative, not uncommonly, conflict and the work of dealing with conflict can be beneficial and lead to improvements in the work environment and can bring out the best in everyone. However, depending on how conflict is managed it can also be detrimental. Indeed, dealing with conflict may be the most important aspect of the job for anyone in a leadership position. This is especially true when dealing with disagreements that may arise in a Department of Surgery. In the most simplistic terms conflict that arises in a Department of Surgery almost always is related to the distribution of resources whether it be due to laboratory space, operating room time, resident assignments, or support for faculty recruitment. In addition, conflict related to issues of faculty compensation is common. This chapter discusses types of conflict, causes of conflict, how to manage conflict, and strategies to resolve conflict, with a particular emphasis on issues pertinent to a Department of Surgery.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

12.1 Introduction

Conflict is inevitable. It is a normal part of everyday life whether at home or in the workplace. Despite the prevailing belief that all conflict is negative, not uncommonly, conflict and the work of dealing with conflict can be beneficial and lead to improvements in the work environment and can bring out the best in everyone. However, depending on how conflict is managed it can also be detrimental. Note that I have used the term “managed” as opposed to “resolved” since, as noted above, conflict is inevitable, it is better to think in terms of managing conflict as opposed to resolving it. Indeed, dealing with conflict may be the most important aspect of the job for anyone in a leadership position. This is especially true when dealing with disagreements that may arise in a Department of Surgery where egos are large and the prevailing sentiment among most of the faculty may be summarized by the phrase, “I may not always be right, but I’m never wrong”. In the most simplistic terms conflict that arises in a Department of Surgery almost always is related to the distribution of resources whether it be laboratory space, operating room time, resident assignments or support for the recruitment of additional faculty. In addition, as in any organization, a chair of a Department of Surgery can count on conflict arising related to issues regarding faculty compensation.

Having been a chair of surgery, the President of a Health Sciences University, a Dean and the President and CEO of a Health System the number of conflicts with which I have had to deal are so numerous and of such variety that I could spend the entire chapter reciting them and detailing the way in which I successfully, or at times, unsuccessfully dealt with any number of them. It might be useful, however, to cite a few as examples. In 2001 when I became the chair of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania I was faced with several significant issues that required fairly rapid decision making and that clearly would create disagreement among a number of faculty members. My predecessor, in addition to being the chair of the department, also served as chief of the Division of Vascular Surgery, chief of the Division of Transplantation and was the Surgery Residency Program Director. I made the decision to stay with internal candidates and in both Vascular and Transplant there were several individuals who not only wanted the job but were eminently qualified. I realized that there was a risk of losing at least one faculty member depending on my decision. In a situation such as this I think it best to be as transparent as possible and communicate clearly and effectively. I individually interviewed each of those who expressed interest in the job, sought the advice and counsel of senior faculty within the department in addition to seeking input from faculty from outside of the department and ultimately made the necessary decisions. Anyone in a decision-making role must understand that with most decisions there will be “winners” and some who perceive themselves as “losers”. Leadership roles are not for those who have a compelling desire to be liked. Many decisions are difficult but fearing that some will not like you cannot paralyze decision-making. With full transparency and clear communication I was able to avoid significant disappointment and both individuals I named as division chiefs remain in those roles to this day. One faculty member left soon after and another left several years later to take a leadership role at another institution. Several years later one faculty member came to me to express his desire to be the division chief as he had by that time established himself as an outstanding and productive academic surgeon. I went to the division chief and asked if he would be willing to relinquish the role within a year or two to his faculty member. The incumbent division chief had done an outstanding job and I was not willing to force him out if he was unwilling to voluntarily relinquish the role and remain in another leadership role. He informed me he was against this idea potentially favoring another faculty member some time in the future. I explained this to the faculty member who aspired to be the chief who subsequently made the decision to accept an outstanding offer to be a division chief at another major institution. The lesson to be learned: all factors must be considered when trying to manage any conflict or make a major decision and often there are consequences despite one’s best intentions. Clearly personality differences come into play and that dimension cannot be ignored but any decision should be based on available facts always attempting to consider the possibility of unintended consequences.

12.2 Types of Conflict

When we speak of conflict we must distinguish between organizational as opposed to interpersonal conflict recognizing that the severity of the conflict increases as the issues become more personal (Fig. 12.1). Technical or work level conflicts that may involve problem-solving approaches or different levels of performance tend to be impersonal and thus create conflicts of relatively low severity. Where priorities and issues surrounding authority and responsibility become involved these can be characterized as political level conflicts and have a tendency of becoming semi-personal and are somewhat increased in their severity. When conflict becomes personal and involves attributes such as attitudes and behaviors these tend to be of high severity and have the potential to be damaging to the organization if not managed appropriately. Individuals in leadership roles need to recognize the type and level of conflict in order to intervene appropriately and in a timely fashion. Classifying conflicts in this way allows for earlier identification to allow intervention at the lower severity level as opposed to allowing conflict to fester and reach the interpersonal level where the ability to manage it is challenging and may actually result in people having to leave an organization. These interpersonal level conflicts have taken on greater importance in the hospital setting as the Joint Commission now looks closely at disruptive physician behavior as a factor in continuing accreditation. Where previously physicians, especially surgeons, could get away with “behaving badly” especially in the operating room, there no longer is any tolerance for this type of behavior. The resolution for these types of conflicts most commonly falls into the hands of the Medical Executive Committee of the hospital and the threshold for the imposition of sanctions is low.

Fig. 12.1

Types and levels of conflicts (after Westbrook-Stevens). Conflicts range from the impersonal that tend to be of low severity to the personal that are characterized by high severity because they involve personalities. Between these two are conflicts that arise on a political level that are semi-personal in origin. When personalities are involved conflict resolution is difficult and special skills are needed to clearly define the issues that exist

Lawrence and Lorsch in their classic book, Organization and Environment, noted that organizational conflict arises because different constituencies within an organization face different technical, economic and geographic “environments” [1]. They thus have different “cognitive and emotional” orientations, which they labeled “differentiation”. Differentiation varies both across and within industries and may differ in both kind and degree. It is incumbent on leadership to assess the degree and type of differentiation and put into place mechanisms to integrate this differentiation within the organization. For an organization to perform optimally the differentiation that exists must be matched by appropriate integration.

According to Bell and Hart there are eight causes of conflict that seem to be applicable to any organization where people have to work together to accomplish a common goal [2]. It is safe to say that all eight may be found in University Departments of Surgery since these departments are comprised of a diverse group of individuals none of whom are lacking in ego identity. The first cause, according to Hart, is conflicting needs. Individuals working in an organization have to compete for resources, power, and perhaps most importantly, recognition. It is well known in University Departments of Surgery that recognition on local, regional and national levels is critical to success especially for those who have ambitions of ascending to leadership roles. Those without resources and power usually spend a significant amount of time complaining about those who have the resources and power. Not uncommonly in academic environments “superstars” arise who, because of their reputation and skill attract patients, grants, additional responsibility, and due to their status, attract and at times demand special attention and concessions. Needless to say this type of behavior can create significant conflict among others members of the department but the “care and feeding” of such individuals often does deserve special consideration and unless their behavior becomes disruptive ultimately benefits the institution. In any organization power is related to dependence [3]. If a person’s expertise is rare, the power of that individual rises. An individual who has that type of influence becomes central to the organization and the rules that apply to others in the organization do not necessarily apply to them. However these highly talented and valuable people can go too far if they attack the enterprise or exhibit behavior detrimental to the institution. The trade-off between talent and disruptive behavior depends on how much the organization values teamwork and morale as being important to the culture. These “superstars” can be more of a challenge to manage in cultures that demand top-flight results, like Departments of Surgery, while simultaneously valuing cooperation and teamwork. Failure to address a “star’s” bad behavior allows resentment to build among others in the organization, which eventually undermines the performance of the entire enterprise. Ultimately the deciding factor is the value that a “star” brings vis a vis the “cost” that accompanies it with cost being much more than simply dollars. However as long as the star performer is producing and the behaviors do not run contrary to the culture of the organization, an organization that is able to absorb such diversity usually becomes stronger. This further underscores how conflict may, when managed, actually result in a strengthening of an organization. When the behavior strays from the values and principles of the organization or if the behavior becomes an unacceptable role model then peer counseling should at least be tried prior to elevating it to a higher level. Executive coaching may also be helpful for some individuals depending on their role in the organization. Disruptive behavior, in certain settings, can be damaging especially with regard to patient care but also in the academic setting. In the operating room disruptive behavior can be especially dangerous since it may promote a climate of fear and intimidation that can lead to silence and subsequently a detrimental effect on patient safety.

The second cause of conflict according to Bell and Hart, conflicting styles, is characterized by the way different individuals handle situations with the recognition that no two individuals always agree in the same way. Conflicting perceptions are similar to styles and individuals view them in different ways. Two or more individuals responsible for different duties but trying to achieve the same goals often results in conflict while conflicting pressures may result when two or more are responsible for separate actions with the same deadline. When someone is asked to perform outside of their job description conflict may result because of the conflicting roles. Currently with our modern diversified workforce the possibility of differing values can lead to falsehoods creating an environment ripe for conflict. Finally if company policies and procedures are inconsistently applied misunderstandings may result underscoring the need for consistency. Ideally disputes may be resolved internally either by intervention from management or ideally by peer review. Peer review may be very effective since it may be perceived as less threatening but also credible especially if done by peers specifically selected to counsel the individual in question.

If workable situations result from conflict in the workplace it must be assumed that all conflict does not necessarily have to be viewed as negative. In the purest sense conflict means that people care enough to feel strongly about their own views and thus conflict should be looked upon as a process to be managed, not eliminated. The following table shows the traditional view of conflict versus a more realistic view [4].

Table 1

The importance of managing conflict is obvious but leadership must walk a fine line between trying to reduce conflict altogether or allow some conflict to remain in order to enhance overall results. Effective leaders must distinguish and manage conflict that boosts productivity and contributes positively from that which decreases output and hinders teamwork.

12.3 Causes of Conflict

Gary Furlong has proposed the six most common drivers of conflict and has arranged them as the Circle of Conflict (Fig. 12.2). Specifically he cites values, relationships, externals/moods, data, interests and structure and has fashioned a pie chart to graphically illustrate where each of the drivers fit [5]. Values include one’s belief systems and ideas of right versus wrong while the relationship driver includes stereotypes, poor or failed communications and repetitive negative behaviors. Factors unrelated to the conflict or the psychological or physiological issues of the parties in a conflict define the driver he calls externals/moods. These three drivers appear at the top of Furlong’s pie chart while data, interests, and structure reside in the bottom of the chart. Data as a driver of conflict involves lack of or too much information, misinformation or data collection problems. Each party’s wants, needs, desires, fears, or concerns defines the interests driver while structure as a driver involves limitations on resources (time, money), geographical constraints, organizational structure, and authority issues. In Furlong’s view conflict is more easily resolved if the focus is on drivers in the bottom half of the circle since the parties have some control over these and dealing with them offers a more direct path toward managing a conflict. If the discussion gets into the top half of the circle it is highly likely that the conflict will escalate since these drivers, for the most part, are not within an individual’s control. However it is clearly within the realm of possibility to work together to gather appropriate information, recognize each party’s needs and desires and overcome geographical constraints or organizational structure issues in order to achieve resolution.

Fig. 12.2

Furlong’s circle of conflict (Ref. [5]). Furlong has proposed the six most common drivers of conflict and placed them in a pie chart. Conflict is more easily resolved if the focus is on drivers in the bottom half of the pie chart (With kind permission from Craig Stevens, from www.westbrookstevens.com)

In its most basic form conflict really is nothing more than a disagreement among two or more individuals and there are two main reasons for conflict in the workplace. Having to depend on others to get a job done and goal differences account for the majority of conflicts that may arise no matter the type of workplace. However the conflicts that may arise when having to depend on others may, paradoxically, result in a positive outcome since it forces individuals to work more closely together as a team. In addition the increased loyalty that results from working together and the need to focus on the task at hand also may have positive benefits to the overall entity. On the negative side the anger and resentment that may be a byproduct of conflict can result in a reduction of communication that ultimately may prove harmful.

It is human nature to seek out the simplest explanation to a problem and in the workplace it is tempting to blame conflict on personalities when the real underlying cause, more likely than not, is the situation itself [6]. The default for most people is to ascribe any difficulty with another person to personality differences or quirks. Focusing on people rather than situations is faster and simpler and focusing on only a few attributes of an individual instead of on the whole person is even easier. The explanation that someone is a micromanager or that “so and so” is self – absorbed may be true but is unlikely to be the source of the conflict though its convenient to be able to put a label on someone. The real reasons for conflict likely are much more complex. It may be that two people’s interests truly may be opposed or each individual’s roles may be poorly defined. Incentives may exist that paradoxically promote competition instead of collaboration and this may only be apparent as conflict arises. Of real concern is the possibility that the work environment is accepting of minimal accountability or transparency regarding what people do or say. Simply blaming personality differences as the source of conflict actually may divert leadership from the real issues that are at the root of a disagreement and delay discovery of the situational dynamics that are causing or worsening already existing conflict. It is important to recognize how both parties in a disagreement need to take risks to change the status quo and it is the role of the leader to be able to effectively convey this concept. Identifying the real underlying cause or causes instead of simply blaming personalities allows for a better opportunity to effectively manage conflict.

While recognizing that personality differences likely are not the cause of most conflicts those of us in positions of leadership cannot simply ignore the fact that personality differences do exist. Liane Davey has commented on how to manage two people who hate each other, a situation that likely arises periodically in any organization [7]. Managing these types of conflict is a fundamental part of a leader’s job. Most of these conflicts arise out of fear and if you as the leader can get to the root of the fear you can help the two individuals rebuild the relationship. It is important to first rule out more systemic issues that may be present and then ensure that both individuals have clarity regarding their roles as well as their levels of authority. The expectations for each person should be clearly articulated and leadership must assure that metrics are in place that promote and reward collaboration as opposed to competition. It is also incumbent on the leader to reflect on his or her own views about the individuals involved in the dispute because the presence of existing frustration or judgments regarding the individuals makes it difficult to work with them to achieve resolution and accommodation. Davey recognizes that hatred stems from miscommunication, misunderstanding, and fear. Realizing this, it is the job of the leader to work with the parties to resolve the conflict. This should begin by meeting individually with both individuals. During this initial meeting the inciting situation should be discussed and feedback should be provided whenever there is overt evidence of the poor relationship such as rolling the eyes when something is mentioned. Feedback regarding the less than desirable behavior should be called out at every opportunity and it is helpful if the feedback ends with an open-ended question that prompts the person to talk. The enlightened leader attempts to get beneath the person’s biased perceptions of the situations in question and into their motives and beliefs and encourages expressions of feelings not judgments or assumptions. The leader redirects back what is heard and starts to generate some thoughts as to what has occurred. The goal is to make sure each individual understands how their own thoughts and feelings affect their perceptions of the other. After meeting with each person individually and facilitating their individual understanding of the dysfunctional relationship the two are brought together to have a conversation with the leader saying little except to point out, based on knowledge gained from the individual meetings, what isn’t being said. Once each individual begins to see how the other thinks and feels it is likely that the animosity will be at least attenuated if not alleviated.

12.4 Managing Conflict

Having established that conflict is inherent in any organization and especially in academic medical centers it is safe to say that anyone in a leadership position spends a considerable amount of their time managing conflict. Effective conflict management is perhaps the defining job of leadership. Managers at all levels within an organization must be not only comfortable with managing conflict but be proficient at it if they are to be successful. In medical school departments conflict management is not just the province of the chair but must be part of the portfolio of division chiefs since most conflicts may be managed without the need to involve the department chair. Department chairs ultimately have to deal with some conflicts that arise within their own department in addition to dealing with those that arise between departments. The Dean’s main job in addition to allocating resources also is conflict management.

When managing conflict it is helpful to analyze the various styles involved (Fig. 12.3). Much depends on whether you are focused on your own issues (internal focus) or those of the other party (external focus). A high level of internal focus with little regard for the other party characterizes a dominating conflict management style that really comes down to a power grab but when utilizing this style any attempt at resolution could be significantly prolonged. This style really comes into play when a decision must be made quickly. Conversely if your focus is on the other party with less concern for your own issues, a situation that is ideal when the issue is of great importance to the other party and only of slight importance to you, the accommodating style may be seen as a gesture of good will. At times it is ideal if the focus is placed on both your own needs and that of the other party but this will only be successful if both of you are able to work together to find the best solution. Any solution found with this collaborative style likely will be of higher quality than if each of you came up with a solution on your own. This style truly typifies the “win-win” scenario. If both you and the other party need some time to step back it may be best for each to focus on internal issues and avoid further discussion. Sometimes this may be ideal in that it offers additional time to seek more information that will inform a better discussion in an attempt to reach a solution. Compromise may allow for a resolution but the solution reached usually is not the best for either you or the other party but may suffice for both of your needs. This is especially true when you and the other party have essentially the same amount of leverage but your goals are mutually exclusive.

Fig. 12.3

Conflict management styles. The various styles of conflict management. Styles vary according to whether the focus is on your own issues or those of the other party. Ideally the problem solving mode where the focus is both on your own issues as well as on the other party will be the style used much of the time. Compromising results in a solution that is not the best for either party but may suffice if the parties have mutually exclusive goals

The culture of an organization is directly linked to the conflict management process that exists within the organization. Conflict may be managed in a variety of ways and in addition to looking at management styles it also is illustrative to look at six categories of modes for responding to conflict as proposed by Charns and Schaffer [8]. The mode used depends to a great extent on the issue at hand but also must fit within the culture of the organization. If we were to look at appropriate modes of conflict management between the military and a university, for instance, one could imagine that one mode would not be applicable to both. In a collegial organization such as a university where shared governance is the norm using a forcing or unilateral mode would not only be difficult but likely would create more problems and additional conflict based on the response when used. A commonly used mode to respond to conflict that may work in some situations is avoiding, that is simply choosing to ignore the issues at hand with the expectation that the problem will blow over. In fact this may be a very useful mode for many of the issues that come up in an academic environment where most are trivial enough if left alone they will just go away. This also underscores the importance for leadership to pick your battles. Not every conflict requires external intervention to achieve resolution. Smoothing is similar to avoiding but when responding in this way the issues are raised but are not discussed to the extent that a decision can be made. Already mentioned are unilateral and forcing modes where a manager makes a decision and in some cases uses the power of the office to force an approach that the manager sees as best. In a true hierarchical organization this mode may be acceptable and expected but the bias of the decision maker may come into play. Decisions may be made without obtaining all relevant information and some may be adversely affected especially if there are unintended consequences that might have been avoided. When all the issues are raised and a full discussion takes place using all relevant information the parties can then work toward the most favorable solution. This mode, labeled confronting, may be the most desirable in many situations since the solution may be bigger and even better than either party expected. Similarly in the bargaining mode each party usually must give up something to reach a compromise and a reasonable solution may be obtained but it is unlikely to be ideal for either party. Responding to conflict in this way may be useful for those situations where there is a zero-sum outcome such as decisions regarding capital expenditures.

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) has been around for a number of years and is designed to measure a person’s behavior in conflict situations [9]. When the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible and thus in a conflict situation, according to TKI behavior they can be described along two dimensions. Assertiveness characterizes the extent to which a person attempts to satisfy their own concerns while cooperativeness, conversely, describes the extent to which a person attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. Plotting assertiveness against cooperativeness yields five modes of how an individual responds to conflict (Fig. 12.4). How one behaves in a conflict situation is a function both of personal preference and familiarity and the requirements of the situation but each of us are capable of using all five modes at various times. The competing mode is power-oriented and is high on the assertive and low on the cooperative. Using this mode brings into play whatever power an individual deems appropriate to win in defending a position, which they believe correct, or simply just trying to win. The exact opposite of the competing mode, accommodating, indicates a significant element of self-sacrifice and neglects one’s own concerns while simply yielding to another’s view or an act of selfless generosity. There are conflict situations where the best approach might be to avoid and as, can be seen, avoiding is defined by low assertiveness and cooperativeness. This may be seen either as a delaying tactic or a choice to simply withdraw when things start to heat up. Working together to identify a solution acceptable to both individuals implies a willingness to do the hard work of identifying the underlying needs of each. Thus the collaborating mode is high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness and is the polar opposite of avoiding. Finally, staking out the middle ground is compromising where there are moderate levels of both cooperativeness and assertiveness. The objective in this mode is to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that at least partially satisfies both parties. This may be a perfectly reasonable approach in many situations but likely fails to lead to any type of creative solution where both parties stand to gain.

Fig. 12.4

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). Plotting assertiveness against cooperativeness yields five modes of how people might respond to conflict. More assertive behavior demonstrates greater attempts to satisfy one’s own concerns as opposed to cooperative behavior where the concerns of the other person may be more important

12.5 Conflict Resolution

Having discussed types and modes of conflict it is reasonable now to look at ways in which conflict can be resolved or at least attenuated. Lencioni in his classic book, Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, proposes a conflict resolution model that involves four types of obstacles that prevent issues from being resolved [10]. The key to resolving conflict is to understand that obstacles exist and before deciding whether to address an issue the model should be looked at and the particular obstacle considered. Lencioni’s model is a series of circles that surround a point of conflict (Fig. 12.5). As can be seen, obstacles closest to the center are the easiest to get beyond. As we move outward away from the center the obstacles become increasingly more difficult to overcome. The two outermost circles, individual and relationship obstacles, are the most difficult to transcend because they involve personalities and, as we know, change when personal characteristics are involved does not come easily if at all. Conflict most commonly occurs when the emphasis is on differences between people. Brinkman and Kirschner in their book, Dealing with People You Can’t Stand, put it best when they state, “United we stand, divided we can’t stand each other” [10]. The point being conflict may be minimized when people concentrate on similarities as opposed to their differences. Resolving a conflict when personality issues are involved takes significant trust because individual risk is involved.

Fig. 12.5

Lencioni’s conflict resolution model. The environmental obstacles, those closest to the center, are the easiest to resolve but as one moves further away from the center the more difficult it becomes to deal with issues that arise. Dealing with individual traits present the greatest difficulties because most individuals are resistant to looking within themselves (With kind permission from Craig A. Stevens, from www.westbrookstevens.com)

Personality conflicts, however, will arise in any organization where people have to work together. Managing conflict among individuals where personalities may be involved is a fundamental part of a leader’s job. Davey has commented on managing two people who hate each other in the Harvard Business Review on-line [7]. As discussed earlier, she notes that hatred stems most often from miscommunication, misunderstanding and fear. If as a leader you can get to the root of the fear it is likely that you can help rebuild the relationship as long as more systemic issues have been ruled out. It is critical that both individuals have clarity regarding their roles, they understand the expectations and that metrics are designed to promote and reward collaboration as opposed to competition. Prior to meeting with each person you must think critically about your own frustration and judgments regarding these individuals as your own views may color the situation to such an extent it may be better to have someone else step in. Prior to the two individuals meeting together you should meet with each separately and discuss the situation, providing feedback whenever evidence of the poor relationship is apparent, i.e., rolling of the eyes, etc. Bad behavior should be called out at every opportunity during the individual meetings but ensure that feedback includes an open-ended question that gets the person talking since that is far more therapeutic than silence. It is up to you to attempt to get beneath the person’s biased perceptions of the various situations that led to the strong feelings and delve into their motives and beliefs. Encourage the expression of feelings, not judgments, and redirect comments that include assumptions. If this is sounding like a psychotherapy session that’s because essentially it is, as practiced by a non-psychotherapist. You as the leader need to reflect back what you hear as you start to generate some hypotheses as to what has occurred. The intent is to assure that each person understands how their own thoughts and feelings affect the perception of the other. Following the individual meetings the two individuals should be brought together to have a conversation where you as the leader say little except when necessary specifically if you know something that is not being said that should be out in the open. If each individual is able to put themselves in the others’ shoes it is unlikely that the animosity will persist.

Whenever we speak about conflict and specifically about conflict management the discussion has to turn to the art and science of negotiation and persuasion. The literature on negotiation is extensive and the art of negotiation continues to be a fertile field of scholarship. Negotiation is so much a part of our everyday life we really don’t think about it but we each negotiate multiple times during a given day. Negotiating is the most basic of tools for getting what you want from others. Whether it is getting your kids to eat their breakfast or haggling over the price of a new car it involves back and forth communication over points on which there is both some agreement and some disagreement and ultimately arriving at a solution. The book, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, written by Roger Fisher and William Ury, is, in my view, the best, or at least the most widely read, source on negotiation [11]. The techniques featured in the book came out of the Harvard Negotiation Project and the method is called “principled negotiation”. The basic idea is to “decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do”. It is based on looking for mutual gains whenever possible with results based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method focuses on the merits involved not the people. Anyone in a position of leadership or who aspires to a leadership position should study this book and learn the techniques. I’ll attempt to highlight some of the key factors involved in this method recognizing that a complete discussion is not possible.

According to Fisher and Ury conflict is not a zero-sum game, that is in any negotiation there does not have to be a winner and a loser; both sides stand to gain something if they are willing to work together to come up with a solution. To get to a solution the parties must avoid what Fisher and Ury label as “trench warfare”, that is both sides taking firm positions and staking their territory with a desire to win at all costs only making concessions when forced to do so. Instead of searching for a reasonable solution together where both benefit, each side wants to win or at least avoid a defeat. Either the more stubborn side wins or a compromise is reached that both sides can live with but likely is less than desirable and falls short of what could have been obtained. This so-called positional bargaining requires little preparation since one or both sides come into the negotiation with a fixed opening offer, knowing what concessions they are willing to make and any threats they might use. This strategy might work reasonably well when dealing with a simple transaction where the stakes are low but rarely does it lead to outstanding results in a more complex negotiation where the stakes are higher. This approach rewards stubbornness and deception and risks damaging a relationship that may be detrimental over the long term. Positional bargaining assumes a zero-sum game in that you give something and then expect to get something back. This compromises the opportunity that more value could be created as the size of the “pie” rarely is fixed. Shifting away from positional bargaining or “trench warfare” to a more collaborative approach likely will produce significant benefits as noted by Weiss in the HBR Guide to Negotiating [12].

A more efficient and desirable outcome may be achieved if you try to understand what motivates and drives the other party. In any negotiation it is best to stick to the facts and stay open minded when it comes to solutions. Building on these tenets the method of principled negotiation comes down to the following four ideas. First, separating the people from the problem. Discussion between the parties should focus on the problem or conflict at hand and not the people negotiating. The goal should never be to “win” as if the other party is an opponent. Both sides have to see each other as partners striving for a win-win solution, not a “winner take all” mentality. Sometimes something as simple as sitting on the same side of the table instead of across from each other may give the perception that the real problem lies on the table in front of you and not the person sitting across from you. The focus should be on interests, not positions. Before trying to come up with solutions it is critical to try to understand the other party’s underlying interests. If it is unclear what is driving the other person the simple solution is to ask them. Working together, both sides should attempt to come up with options that result in mutual gain. It is critical to outline options well before trying to identify solutions. Rather than each side bringing their own proposals to the table it is best to be open to discussing a variety of potential solutions. This might start with dreaming up the most extreme positions and then going through different scenarios considering the details in each. The fourth idea behind principled negotiation involves finding objective criteria on which to base decisions. Both sides should be clear about their criteria for evaluating the quality of a solution. Preparation is key to a successful negotiation. This means knowing as much as possible about the facts well before sitting down to negotiate. The better prepared you are the more you will understand what is driving the other side and thus be more likely to ultimately develop a creative solution. Communication remains the key to any negotiation and the importance of listening cannot be over emphasized. Sometimes it is useful to re-state what you have heard from the other side as it shows that you are listening and gives them a chance to correct any misconceptions. Once the position of the other side is understood your own interests should be stated along with your expectations while avoiding criticizing the other side’s position or pointing out what you consider to be their mistakes. The goal is to keep the discussion at the level of the facts and to maintain the discussion. It is important to develop a standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. This is your so-called, BATNA, or best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Having a well-developed BATNA protects you from accepting a solution that is too unfavorable or rejecting terms that would be in your interest to accept. The better your BATNA, the greater your power. The better your option to a negotiated solution if agreement cannot be reached, the more leverage this gives you at the negotiating table. Attractive alternatives to a negotiated agreement must be developed but having these is the most effective weapon when dealing with a more powerful negotiator or at least one with what is perceived to be greater leverage.

As opposed to Fisher and Ury, Stuart Diamond takes a somewhat different view and proposes six negotiation tools in his book, Getting More: How You Can Negotiate to Succeed in Work and Life, some of which overlap with those articulated by Fisher and Ury but the basic principles differ (Fig. 12.6). According to Diamond, negotiation is at the heart of human interaction. Every time people interact there is a negotiation occurring, verbal or non-verbal, conscious or unconscious. He notes that strategies, tools, models and attitudes taken together form a negotiation process. One has to fully understand the psychology of the other person and the psychological baggage they may bring to the table. It all comes down to getting people to perceive what you want them to perceive. The key to a successful negotiation centers around understanding others’ perceptions and having an ability to look at the world the way the other side looks at it. This starts with visualizing the “pictures” in their heads. Once these are understood the goal is to change these perceptions incrementally. To do this involves getting people to feel what you want them to feel. A negotiation that considers feelings is much broader in scope than simply considering interests. When the other party realizes that you care about their feelings they will listen closer thus making them easier to persuade. This differs significantly from the view of Fisher and Ury who stress separating the people from the problem sticking to the facts.

Fig. 12.6

Diamond’s six negotiation tools (Ref. [13]). These tools are used in order to get people to perceive what you want them to perceive. This starts with visualizing the pictures in the other person’s head. Understanding other’s perceptions is key to successful negotiations. Considering feelings makes a negotiation much broader in scope than simply considering interests

In Diamond’s view the point of any negotiation is to meet your goals and get what you want. This view also differs somewhat from that of Fisher and Ury who stress working together with the other party to come up with a mutually beneficial solution. According to Diamond the key questions to ask yourself are, “What do you want at the end of this negotiation that you don’t have now?” and “Are my actions meeting my goals?” Diamond’s entire negotiation strategy can be summarized by three broad questions: (1) What are my goals? (2) Who are “they”? (3) What will it take to persuade them? The third question depends on the answers to the first two. The people involved and the process they use comprise greater than 90 % of what is important in a negotiation. Substance, facts and expertise make up less than 10 %, a view that differs substantially from that of Fisher and Ury. Unless you connect in some way with the people you are negotiating with, according to Diamond, you won’t get a deal. You are the least important person; the most important person is “them”. The people and the process actually become more important than the facts. This view, of course, differs significantly from the view of Fisher and Ury who stress fighting the problem, not the people. In Diamond’s view focusing on people gets you more and he underscores valuing the other party as the key to get other people to give you what you want. Understanding the pictures in the head of the other party is the single most important thing you can do in trying to persuade another person. By valuing other people you acknowledge their power and it makes people feel good knowing they have power. When you value other people, they will give you “stuff” according to Diamond. The biggest cause of negotiation failure is communication failure and the single biggest cause of communication failure is misperception. Asking for too much at once is another prescription for failure since it tends to scare people and makes the negotiation riskier. The better strategy is to lead people from the pictures in their head to your goals a step at a time, changing perceptions incrementally. It also pays to be persistent and stay focused on your goals. According to Diamond a negotiation is over when you say its over, not before, and criteria do exist to delineate what defines a successful negotiation no matter what techniques are used. Weiss proposes seven elements that define success [12]. One should aim for an agreement that satisfies everyone’s core interests, is the best of many options, meets legitimate fair standards, and is better than your alternatives. In addition a successful agreement is comprised of clear, realistic commitments, is the result of effective communication and helps to build the kind of relationship that you want.

It is hard to separate negotiation from persuasion since the terms can be almost used interchangeably. Clearly, persuasion is a part of any negotiation and in the view of some is the basis of negotiation. Jay Conger writing in the Harvard Business Review on “The Necessary Art of Persuasion” states that persuasion involves careful preparation, the proper framing of arguments, the presentation of supporting evidence, and the effort to find the correct emotional match with the audience [14]. He discusses four common ways to fail when trying to persuade starting with attempting to make one’s case with an up-front hard sell. This clearly falls in line with the concepts of principled negotiation where it is recognized that starting out with a strong position only engenders resentment and a defensive posture. Conger finds that setting out a strong position as the initial approach gives the other party a target to grab onto and fight against and feels it is far better to present a position with finesse and reserve. As opposed to Fisher and Ury who feel that compromise does not lead to an optimal solution, Conger opines that resisting compromise actually hinders persuasion. He does acknowledge that many see compromise as surrender but he sees persuasion as a process of give and take and to be effective it is critical to listen to the other side and incorporate their perspective into your own. This is in direct contradiction to Diamond who feels it important to recognize the others’ perspective but then work to change it, not incorporate it. Thinking the key to persuasion lies in presenting great arguments also may interfere with trying to persuade. Strong arguments matter but other factors such as credibility on the part of the persuader and the ability to create a proper mutually beneficial frame for a position may matter just as much. To persuade one must be able to connect on the appropriate emotional level with the other party and communicate with language that makes arguments vivid. A sure fire way to fail at persuasion is to assume it is a one-shot effort instead of a process, a slow and difficult one at that. Successful persuasion involves listening, testing a position, modifying the position, more testing, more listening and on and on.

One can make the argument if persuasion isn’t negotiation it certainly is a big part of it. Persuasion is a learning and negotiating process that involves phases of discovery, preparation, and dialogue. Extensive and time consuming planning may be required and the best persuaders incorporate the others’ perspectives into a shared solution. Effective persuasion requires establishing credibility, framing goals to identify common ground, reinforcing the position using vivid language and compelling evidence and connecting emotionally. One can make the case that how the position is presented is as important as the position itself. Credibility, the cornerstone of effective persuading, is established through expertise and relationship building. Establishing common ground by identifying shared benefits is key to the process and requires a clear understanding of the other party. The most effective persuaders are able to use stories and vivid language to their advantage to get their points across recognizing that listeners absorb information much more readily than if they simply are fed facts or concepts. They also need to match their emotional level with that of the other party by adjusting their tone accordingly. Too much emotion can be as detrimental as too little.

Robert Cialdini has studied persuasion for many years and has written extensively. In a Harvard Business Review article entitled, “Harnessing the Science of Persuasion”, he puts forth the view that persuasion is governed by basic principles that can be learned and he articulates six fundamental principles [15]. The principle of liking makes the point that people like those who like them. To apply this one has to work to uncover real similarities and offer genuine praise using similarities to create bonds and establish these bonds early. If you want to influence people, he says, win friends. Praising both charms and disarms. The principle of reciprocity states that people repay in kind, thus give what you want to receive. Leaders should model the behavior they want to see from others. People following the lead of others similar to them is encompassed by the principle of social proof. Since people rely on others around them to model behavior the use of peer pressure should be employed whenever feasible. Persuasion can be very effective when it comes from peers as influence may best be used horizontally as opposed to vertically. The principle of consistency notes that people align with clear commitments especially when these commitments are made actively. A choice made actively is considerably more likely to influence future conduct than if left unspoken. Written statements become even more powerful when made public since most people have a need to appear consistent to others. The fact that people defer to experts is encompassed by the principle of authority. This requires those in leadership roles to expose their expertise and not assume it is self-evident. Leaders need to establish their own expertise before they attempt to exert influence. Think of this in the context of a chair of surgery who does not operate and contemplate how that comes across to those surgeons in the “trenches”.

Finally the principle of scarcity reinforces the notion that people want more of what is limited. This points out the use of highlighting unique benefits and exclusive information. Opportunities are seen to be more valuable as they become less available. The potential of losing something figures far more heavily in decision making than potentially gaining something. Tremendous persuasive power resides with exclusivity.

Managing difficult situations often calls for difficult conversations. According to Patterson and colleagues in their book, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, the key skill of effective leaders is the capacity to skillfully address emotionally and politically risky issues [16]. A crucial conversation takes place when the stakes are high and two or more people have a discussion where opinions vary and emotions are volatile. Most lingering problems in any organization have at their root crucial conversations either that are being held or not being held well. Each of us has our own combination of thoughts and feelings that comprise our personal “pool of meaning”, according to Patterson. Obviously no two individuals share the same pool but people who are skilled at dialogue make it safe for all parties to add their meaning to a shared pool so that all ideas are out in the open. As this pool of shared meaning has ideas added to it the individuals involved are exposed to more accurate and relevant information allowing them to make better choices. Time spent establishing this shared pool of meaning is more than made up by more unified and committed action later. Each time you find yourself arguing, running away, or acting ineffectively it is due to our inability to share meaning. It is critical to begin high-risk discussions with the right motives and remain focused. Believing that others are the source of the problem is the first item that needs to be fixed and, according to Patterson, the way to work on “us” is to start with “me”. When it comes down to it the only person you can reliably work on is yourself. The focus needs to be on what you really want from the high stakes discussion. Patterson notes that when faced with pressure and strong emotions we waver from adding to the pool of meaning and begin looking for ways to win, punish, or my favorite, keep the peace. At this point you need to stop and ask yourself questions that return you to a dialogue such as, “What does my behavior tell me about what my motives are?”, and “what do I really want for myself? For others?” Finally one should ask, “How would I behave if I really wanted these results?” Dialogue needs to be the default no matter the circumstances and you should search for the “and” questions that combines what you really want and what you really don’t want. Combining these into an “and” question forces you to search for more productive options. Patterson and colleagues discuss at lengths techniques that one can learn to manage these crucial conversations that are a part of everyday life for many of us.

Despite the recognition that conflict in the workplace is a fact of life and accepting the fact that conflict can and should be beneficial it remains a reasonable goal to attempt to minimize conflict whenever possible. There are several strategies that those in positions of leadership can utilize starting with respecting others. Leaders should listen to those they lead and encourage opposing views. Creating an environment that encourages open dialogue can only be helpful and often may result in suggestions and solutions that leadership has overlooked. It is critical to clearly communicate expectations and specifically priorities and responsibilities to avoid misconceptions about individuals’ roles within the organization. Encouraging teamwork so that each member accepts a shared responsibility for success with each making a contribution for the good of the team likely will result in effort directed toward the team performance and not toward individual differences. Finally, empowering people and making them part of the solution when problems arise fosters an “ownership attitude” that allows efforts to be directed toward the good of the entire organization in which each individual can take pride. It is not unreasonable for a leader to see themselves as working for their subordinates. Giving people both the responsibility and the authority creates an atmosphere of partnership.

12.6 Conclusion

Conflict should be embraced not avoided. Fear of conflict may lead to a situation where there is an inability to make decisions much to the detriment of the organization. There is a tendency for those in leadership positions to have a strong desire to be liked and they want to be seen as team players so the default is to avoid conflict whenever possible. Open discussion and contrarian views should be encouraged recognizing there will be some with strong opinions that likely will promote controversy. Leaders should promote open, honest and candid discussions and strive to work through differences to reach agreement when disputes arise. Leaders who lack the skills to engage constructively in conflict will find themselves limited in their ability to effectively lead an organization. Ample literature and support exist to allow leaders to avail themselves of the tools to become proficient at and even enjoy managing difficult situations.