Conflict Resolution MethodsThere are many ways people deal with conflict: -- Give in and accept the changes someone wants. -- Do nothing; hoping the problem will go away. -- Avoid the person or the situation. -- Pretend the problem does not bother you when it really does. -- Go to a higher authority. -- Go to court or arbitration. -- Fight and argue. -- Talk things out with the other person (in private or with a mediator). Here are some steps one could follow to resolve a conflict: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15) 1. Talk to the Other Party. Surprisingly, many people complain of impossible difficulties about their problem without ever once trying to talk with the person who could solve the problem. Two disagreeing parties should first try to make an honest effort to discuss their points of view and work things out on their own. Be calm and respectful. Keep an open mind and be willing to listen. If you cannot talk face-to-face or by telephone, write a letter. Keep it short and to the point, and above all, be polite. See How to Talk Things Out to know more about talking to the other party. 2. Try Mediation. If your efforts to talk things out fail, you may request mediation service through the Center for Conflict Resolution. We will attempt to mediate by discussing the problem with both sides and, if necessary, by bringing the parties together in a mediation conference. The mediator remains neutral and impartial and helps the parties work out what they think would be the best solution. 3. Arbitration or Court. When disputing parties fail to reach a settlement through mediation, they may carry it on through our arbitration process or the public judicial system. Arbitration is a private adjudicatory process similar to a court of law. The decisions are legally binding. The disputants give up the power to create their own solution and place control of their problem in the hands of a neutral third-party, called an arbitrator. Therefore, arbitration or court should be the last resort to settle a dispute. When seeking adjudication of the dispute, the parties must choose either arbitration or court; they cannot do both. (SeeArbitration.) https://ccr.byu.edu/content/conflict-resolution-methods The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints | BYU Hawaii | BYU Idaho | BYU Jerusalem Center | BYU Salt Lake Center | LDS Business College | Provo MTCBrigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, (801) 422-4636, Address/Directions. Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved. http://www.etu.org.za/toolbox/docs/building/c onflict.html Conflict Management What is on this page? 1. What do organisations use conflict management for? 2. Important things to know about "conflict" and "conflict management" - The differences between "competition" and "conflict" - Common causes of conflict - Conflict between individuals - Conflict between groups of people - Conflict within a group of people 3. How to identify signs and stages of conflict - "Disputes of right" and "disputes of interest" - Stages of conflict - Signs of conflict between individuals - Signs of conflict between groups of people 4. How to build teamwork and co-operation (…and so minimise the possibility of conflict) 5. How to manage and resolve conflict situations - Collective bargaining - Conciliation - The difference between mediation, arbitration and negotiation - How to be an effective mediator - How to run a mediation process 6. Outline for a Mediation Practice Session - Introduction - Opening of mediation - Statement of positions - Finding commonground - Reassessing positions - Reaching agreement - Closure of mediation - Assessment 7. Mediation Guideline: Code of Conduct for Participants 1. What do organisations use conflict management for? For any organisation to be effective and efficient in achieving its goals, the people in the organisation need to have a shared vision of what they are striving to achieve, as well as clear objectives for each team / department and individual. You also need ways of recognising and resolving conflict amongst people, so that conflict does not become so serious that co-operation is impossible. All members of any organisation need to have ways of keeping conflict to a minimum - and of solving problems caused by conflict, before conflict becomes a major obstacle to your work. This could happen to any organisation, whether it is an NGO, a CBO, a political party, a business or a government. Conflict management is the process of planning to avoid conflict where possible and organising to resolve conflict where it does happen, as rapidly and smoothly as possible. 2. Important things to know about "conflict" and "conflict management": The differences between "competition" and "conflict" "Competition" usually brings out the best in people, as they strive to be top in their field, whether in sport, community affairs, politics or work. In fact, fair and friendly competition often leads to new sporting achievements, scientific inventions or outstanding effort in solving a community problem. When competition becomes unfriendly or bitter, though, conflict can begin - and this can bring out the worst in people. Common causes of conflict Causes or sources of organisational conflict can be many and varied. The most common causes are the following: scarcity of resources (finance, equipment, facilities, etc) different attitudes, values or perceptions disagreements about needs, goals, priorities and interests poor communication poor or inadequate organisational structure lack of teamwork lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities Conflict between individual People have differing styles of communication, ambitions, political or religious views and different cultural backgrounds. In our diverse society, the possibility of these differences leading to conflict between individuals is always there, and we must be alert to preventing and resolving situations where conflict arises. Conflict between groups of people Whenever people form groups, they tend to emphasise the things that make their group "better than" or "different from" other groups. This happens in the fields of sport, culture, religion and the workplace and can sometimes change from healthy competition to destructive conflict. Conflict within a group of people Even within one organisation or team, conflict can arise from the individual differences or ambitions mentioned earlier; or from rivalry between sub-groups or factions. All leaders and members of the organisation need to be alert to group dynamics that can spill over into conflict. 3. How to identify signs and stages of conflict "Disputes of right" and "disputes of interest" Especially in the workplace, two main types of disputes have been noted (although these two types may also happen in other situations). These are: "disputes of right", where people or groups are entitled by law, by contract, by previous agreement or by established practice to certain rights. Disputes of right will focus on conflict issues such as employment contracts, legally enforceable matters or unilateral changes in accepted or customary practices. A dispute of rights is, therefore, usually settled by legal decision or arbitration and not by negotiation. "disputes of interest", where the conflict may be a matter of opinion, such as where a person or group is entitled to some resources or privileges (such as access to property, better working conditions, etc). Because there is no established law or right, a dispute of interest will usually be solved through collective bargaining or negotiation. Stages of conflict The handling of conflict requires awareness of its various developmental stages. If leaders in the situation can identify the conflict issue and how far it has developed, they can sometimes solve it before it becomes much more serious. Typical stages include: where potential for conflict exists - in other words where people recognise that lack of resources, diversity of language or culture may possible result in conflict if people are not sensitive to the diversity. latent conflict where a competitive situation could easily spill over into conflict - e.g. at a political rally or in the workplace where there are obvious differences between groups of people. open conflict - which can be triggered by an incident and suddenly become real conflict. aftermath conflict - the situation where a particular problem may have been resolved but the potential for conflict still exists. In fact the potential may be even greater than before, if one person or group perceives itself as being involved in a win-loose situation. Signs of conflict between individuals In the organisation leaders and members should be alert to signs of conflict between colleagues, so that they can be proactive in reducing or resolving the conflict by getting to the root of the issue. Typical signs may include: colleagues not speaking to each other or ignoring each other contradicting and bad-mouthing one another deliberately undermining or not co-operating with each other, to the downfall of the team Signs of conflict between groups of people Similarly, leaders and members can identify latent conflict between groups of people in the organisation or the community and plan action before the conflict becomes open and destructive: cliques or factions meeting to discuss issues separately, when they affect the whole organisation one group being left out of organising an event which should include everybody groups using threatening slogans or symbols to show that their group is right and the others are wrong 4. How to build teamwork and co-operation (…and so minimise the possibility of conflict) Teamwork and co-operation are essential in an organisation which aims to be effective and efficient, and not likely to be divided by conflicting factions. The best teamwork usually comes from having a shared vision or goal, so that leaders and members are all committed to the same objectives and understand their roles in achieving those objectives. Important behaviours in achieving teamwork and minimising potential conflict include a commitment by team members to: share information by keeping people in the group up-to-date with current issues express positive expectations about each other empower each other - publicly crediting colleagues who have performed well and encouraging each other to achieve results team-build - by promoting good morale and protecting the group's reputation with outsiders resolve potential conflict - by bringing differences of opinion into the open and facilitating resolution of conflicts 5. How to manage and resolve conflict situations Collective bargaining Especially in workplace situations, it is necessary to have agreed mechanisms in place for groups of people who may be antagonistic (e.g. management and workers) to collectively discuss and resolve issues. This process is often called "collective bargaining", because representatives of each group come together with a mandate to work out a solution collectively. Experience has shown that this is far better than avoidance or withdrawal, and puts democratic processes in place to achieve "integrative problem solving", where people or groups who must find ways of co-operating in the same organisation, do so within their own agreed rules and procedures. Conciliation The dictionary defines conciliation as "the act of procuring good will or inducing a friendly feeling". South African labour relations legislation provides for the process of conciliation in the workplace, whereby groups who are in conflict and who have failed to reach agreement, can come together once again to attempt to settle their differences. This is usually attempted before the more serious step of a strike by workers or a lock-out by management is taken; and it has been found useful to involve a facilitator in the conciliation process. Similarly, any other organisation (e.g. sports club, youth group or community organisation) could try conciliation as a first step. The difference between negotiation, mediation, and arbitration Three methods of resolving situations that have reached the stage of open conflict are often used by many different organisations. It is important to understand these methods, so that people can decide which methods will work best for them in their specific conflict situation: Negotiation: this is the process where mandated representatives of groups in a conflict situation meet together in order to resolve their differences and to reach agreement. It is a deliberate process, conducted by representatives of groups, designed to reconcile differences and to reach agreements by consensus. The outcome is often dependent on the power relationship between the groups. Negotiations often involve compromise - one group may win one of their demands and give in on another. In workplaces Unions and management representative usually sue negotiations to solve conflicts. Political and community groups also often use this method. Mediation: when negotiations fail or get stuck, parties often call in and independent mediator. This person or group will try to facilitate settlement of the conflict. The mediator plays an active part in the process, advises both or all groups, acts as intermediary and suggests possible solutions. In contrast to arbitration (see below) mediators act only in an advisory capacity - they have no decision-making powers and cannot impose a settlement on the conflicting parties. Skilled mediators are able to gain trust and confidence from the conflicting groups or individuals. Arbitration: means the appointment of an independent person to act as an adjudicator (or judge) in a dispute, to decide on the terms of a settlement. Both parties in a conflict have to agree about who the arbitrator should be, and that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on them all. Arbitration differs from mediation and negotiation in that it does not promote the continuation of collective bargaining: the arbitrator listens to and investigates the demands and counter-demands and takes over the role of decision-maker. People or organisations can agree on having either a single arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators whom they respect and whose decision they will accept as final, in order to resolve the conflict. How to be an effective mediator An effective mediator needs certain skills in order to achieve credibility and results: preferably a proven record of success in mediation or negotiation the ability to gain the trust, acceptance and co-operation of conflicting parties clear thinking in identifying the real problems and offering practical solutions knowledgeable about the organisational structures, strategies and attitudes of the conflicting parties; as well as any relevant laws or agreements tactful and diplomatic with the necessary powers of persuasion and strong character to nudge the participants progressively towards an agreement. How to run a mediation process The mediation process can be broadly divided into the following three stages: Stage 1: Introduction and establishment of credibility During the first stage, the mediator plays a passive role. The main task is to gain the trust and acceptance of the conflicting parties, so that they begin to believe that he/she will be capable of assisting them fairly as a person on whom they can rely at all times. An experienced mediator will leave most of the talking to the disputing parties, but will listen attentively and ask probing questions to pinpoint the causes of the dispute, obstacles to a possible settlement and to identify the issues in order of priority. Once credibility is achieved and sufficient background knowledge gained, the mediator may begin to persuade the parties to resume negotiations, possibly with a fresh perspective. Stage 2: Steering the negotiation process In the second stage, the mediator intervenes more actively in steering the negotiations. He/she may offer advice to the parties, attempt to establish the actual resistance point of each party and to discover areas in which compromises could be reached. The mediator will encourage parties to put forward proposals and counter-proposals and (when a solution appears feasible) will begin to urge or even pressurise the participants towards acceptance of a settlement. Stage 3: Movement towards a final settlement An experienced mediator will know when to use diplomacy and when to exert pressure towards final settlement of the dispute. Timing and sensitivity to personalities and strategic positions is important to maintain credibility and avoid rejection by one or more parties in the process. He/she might use bi-lateral discussions with individuals or groups and during the final stages may actually suggest or draft proposals for consideration. In the event of a final settlement being reached, the mediator usually assists the parties in the drafting of their agreement, ensuring that both sides are satisfied with the wording, terms and conditions of the agreement. The process of mediation is dynamic and finely-tuned. A good mediator has to be flexible and inventive, must ensure that his/her personal values are not imposed on the conflicting parties. At most a mediator can advise, persuade or cajole them towards agreement. 1. Mediation Guideline: Code of Conduct for Participants During mediation you need some rules on how each side should behave, especially if there are a lot of people involved in the mediation. This is a checklist of rules and procedures which you can get each side to agree on before you start to run a mediation session. To save time, you can get the sides to agree on some of these issues before you start the formal medication sessions. Trust and respect for chairperson (i.e. the mediator) and the mediating team (if more that one person) Should there be translation and who should do it? Is the venue secure and neutral? Do the chairs and tables have to be re-arranged? Size and leadership of delegations. Should observers be allowed? Agreeing to behave in a polite and disciplined way. No blaming, verbal abuse or shouting. No physical intimidation (e.g. pointing) and violence. No presence and carrying of weapons. Should smoking, drinking and eating be allowed? No other distracting behaviour, e.g. caucussing while the other side is speaking. How long should sessions be? Equal time for each side to speak and who should speak first. Opportunity to caucus and consult when necessary. How should the mediation be minuted? What parts of the discussion should be confidential? How should the agreement be reported back to members? Should the outcome of the mediation be publicised and how? http://www.okbar.org/public/brochures/confbroc.htm oklahoma bar asssociation Methods for Resolving Conflicts and Disputes RESOLVING CONFLICTS AND DISPUTES In today's complex society we all deal with conflict in our daily lives - at home, work, school, in personal and business relations. Most of us would prefer to have our conflicts resolved fairly without violence or animosity. We would like our differences settled at the least cost and stress to ourselves, families, jobs or businesses. What Are Your Options: We are all familiar with the most traditional dispute resolution process of our civil justice system - litigation and trial with a judge or jury deciding who is right or wrong - where someone wins and someone loses. There are really many more options available to you for problem solving and resolving disputes. Negotiation, mediation and arbitration - often called ADR or in alternative dispute resolution - are the most well-known. Whether you are involved in a family or neighborhood dispute or a lawsuit involving thousands of dollars, these processes should be considered. They are often the more appropriate methods of dispute resolution and can result in a fair, just, reasonable answer for both you and the other party -- a win-win solution. Settlement and compromise have long been favored in the legal system. In fact, most cases that are filed in a court do settle. Only 5% of all cases filed go to trial. These ADR procedures are excellent options for you in dealing with controversy, allowing you to reach resolution earlier and with less expense than traditional litigation. In fact, many courts require parties to consider some form of ADR before going to trial. When communications break down, differences increase and conflicts arise. Knowing generally what all your options are, when they are used and how they can help you goes a long way toward getting your dispute resolved and giving you a satisfactory result. The following processes describe ways you can resolve disputes. NEGOTIATION Definition: Negotiation is the most basic means of settling our differences. It is backand-forth communication between the parties to the conflict with the goal of trying to find a solution. The Process: You may negotiate directly with the other person. You may hire an attorney to negotiate directly with the other side on your behalf. There are no specific procedures to follow - you can determine your own - but it works best if all parties agree to remain calm and not talk at the same time. Depending on your situation, you can negotiate in the board room of a big company, in an office or even in your own living room. Negotiation allows you to participate directly in decisions that affect you. In the most successful negotiations, you are trying to get what is best for you while considering the needs and interests of the other side. A negotiated agreement can become a contract and be enforceable. When and How Negotiation Is Used: Most people negotiate every day - with children about doing homework, with a neighbor about the location of a fence, with a boss about a raise, or with a business about buying their product. In some circumstances you may want the help of a lawyer to help you negotiate a fair deal. Negotiation is certainly the first method of choice for problem solving and trying to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. If no agreement is reached, you may pursue any of the other options suggested here. This process can be appropriately used at any stage of the conflict - before a lawsuit is filed, while a lawsuit is in progress, at the conclusion of a trial, even before or after an appeal is filed. Characteristics of Negotiation: Voluntary Private and confidential Quick and inexpensive Informal and unstructured Parties control the process Parties make their own decisions and reach their own agreements (no third party decision maker) Negotiated agreements can be enforceable Can result in a win-win solution MEDIATION Definition: Mediation is a voluntary process in which an impartial person (the mediator) helps with communication and promotes reconciliation between the parties which will allow them to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Mediation often is the the next step if negotiation proves unsuccessful. The Process: The mediator manages the process and helps facilitate negotiation between the parties. A mediator does not make a decision nor force an agreement. The parties directly participate and are responsible for negotiating their own settlement or agreement. At the beginning of the mediation session, the mediator will describe the process and the ground rules. The parties or their attorneys have an opportunity to explain their view of the dispute. Mediation helps each side better understand the other's point of view. Sometimes the mediator will meet separately with each side. Separate "caucusing" can help address emotional and factual issues as well as allow time for receiving legal advice from your attorney. Mediations are generally held in the office of the mediator or other agreed location. Agreements can be creative. You could reach a solution that might not be available from a court of law. For example, if you owe someone money but don't have the cash, rather than be sued and get a judgment against you, settlement options could include trading something you have for something the other wants. If an agreement is reached, it will generally be reduced to writing. Most people uphold a mediated agreement because they were a part of making it. It can become a contract and be enforceable. If there is no agreement, you have not lost any of your rights and you can pursue other options such as arbitration or going to trial. When and How Mediation Is Used: When you and the other person are unable to negotiate a resolution to your dispute by yourselves, you may seek the assistance of a mediator who will help you and the other party explore ways of resolving your differences. You may choose to go to mediation with or without a lawyer depending upon the type of problem you have. You may always consult with an attorney prior to finalizing an agreement to be sure that you have made fully informed decisions and that all your rights are protected. Sometimes mediators will suggest that you do this. Mediation can be used in most conflicts ranging from disputes between consumers and merchants, landlords and tenants, employers and employees, family members in such areas as divorce, child custody and visitation rights, eldercare and probate, as well as simple or complex business disputes or personal injury matters. Mediation can also be used at any stage of the conflict such as facilitating settlements of a pending lawsuit. Attorneys and other professionals provide private mediation for a fee. If you have an attorney, you can work together to select a mediator of your choice. You may want a mediator who is knowledgeable about the subject matter of your dispute. You may wish to use a for-fee mediator in the first instance or if Early Settlement mediation has not resulted in a resolution of your dispute. You may also find mediators or mediation services listed in the telephone directory or available on lists provided by some courts or private professional organizations. When selecting a mediator, you should always check their credentials and get references. Mediators qualified under the District Court Mediation Act meet statutory standards of training and experience. Who Provides This Service: Public mediation services are available through Early Settlement Centers - 12 regional centers statewide. This program provides the services of volunteer mediators, trained and certified to mediate in the Administrative Office of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Mediators in this system are assigned to mediate your dispute by the various program administrators. They are available at minimal or no charge to help you resolve conflicts, often without the assistance of an attorney or the need to go to court. Call (405) 521-6677 for the phone number and location of the center nearest you. You should feel free to ask for information about the assigned mediator, including the mediator's experience in disputes like yours. You may also find mediation in our state and federal court systems called courtsponsored mediation. Generally you and your attorney may select a private mediator or choose a public service. Fees may apply. Judges are frequently referring cases to settlement procedures such as mediation to help litigants resolve their disputes in less time and with less cost than litigation and trial. Characteristics of Mediation: Promotes communication and cooperation Provides a basis for you to resolve disputes on your own Voluntary, informal and flexible Usually you can choose your own mediator Private and confidential, avoiding public disclosure of personal or business problems Can preserve on-going relationships - business, family Can reduce hostility Allows you to avoid the uncertainty, time, cost and stress of going to trial Allows you to make mutually acceptable agreements tailored to meet your needs Can result in a win-win solution ARBITRATION: Definition: Arbitration is the submission of a disputed matter to an impartial person (the arbitrator) for decision. The Process: Arbitration is typically an out-of-court method for resolving a dispute. The arbitrator controls the process, will listen to both sides and make a decision. Like a trial, only one side will prevail. Unlike a trial, appeal rights are limited. In a more formal setting, the arbitrator will conduct a hearing where all of the parties present evidence through documents, exhibits and testimony. The parties may agree to, in some instances establish their own procedure, or an administrating organization may provide procedures. There can be either one arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators. An arbitration hearing is usually held in offices or other meeting rooms. The result can be binding if all parties have previously agreed to be bound by the decision. In that case, the right to appeal the arbitrator's decision is very limited. An arbitrator's award can be reduced to judgment in a court and thus be enforceable. In non-binding arbitration, a decision may become final if all parties agree to accept it or it may serve to help you evaluate the case and be a starting point for settlement talks. How and When Arbitration Is Used: A common use of arbitration is in the area of labor disputes - between fire fighters and the city in wage disputes, for example. You will usually be represented by an attorney in an arbitration. Many contracts have clauses which require that disputes arising out of that contract be arbitrated. You may have seen such a provision when you applied for a credit card or opened a retirement account or other account with a stock broker. You may want to explore using this process if you and the other side agree that the problem needs to have someone make a decision but you do not want the expense of going through the court process. If you agree to arbitrate or sign a contract with an arbitration clause, you should understand that the arbitrator may make the final decision and that you may be waiving your right to a trial in court. Who Provides This Service: Many attorneys, other professionals or professional associations offer their services as arbitrators. Typically your attorney will select the arbitrator based upon the particular type of the dispute. In complex and highly technical cases, often an arbitrator who is knowledgeable in that field is chosen. Usually fees are charged. Some courts offer court-sponsored, non-binding arbitration and have specific procedural rules to follow. Characteristics of Arbitration: Can be used voluntarily Private (unless the limited court appeal is made) Maybe less formal and structured than going to court, depending on applicable arbitration rules Usually quicker and less expensive than going to court, Depending on applicable arbitration rules Each party will have the opportunity to present evidence and make arguments May have a right to choose an arbitrator with specialized expertise A decision will be made by the arbitrator which may resolve the dispute and be final Arbitrator's award can be enforced in a court If non-binding, you still have the right to a trial LITIGATION (Going To Court) Definition: Litigation is the use of the courts and civil justice system to resolve legal controversies. The Process: Litigation is begun by filing a lawsuit in a court. Specific rules of procedure, discovery and presentation of evidence must be followed. The attorney for the other side will want to take your deposition to learn more about the facts as you see them and your position in the case. There can be a number of court appearances by you and/or your lawyer. If the parties cannot agree how to settle the case, either the judge or a jury will decide the dispute for you through a trial. A trial is a formal judicial proceeding allowing full examination and determination of all the issues between the parties with each side presenting its case to either a jury or a judge. The decision is made by applying the facts of the case to the applicable law. That verdict or decision can conclude the litigation process and be enforceable; however, if appropriate, the loser can appeal the decision to a higher court. In some cases, the losing party may have to pay the costs of the law suit and may have to pay the other party's attorney fees. How and When Litigation Is Used: Our American civil justice system is one of the best in the world. Our Constitution gives us the right to a fair trial. If you want your day in court with a judge or jury of your peers deciding the outcome, then the pursuit of litigation and trial of the case is for you. You may be in a municipal court, state district court or a federal court depending on the type of dispute you have and where your attorney files your case or where you get sued. State court trial judges are elected on a non-partisan ballot, though vacancies are filled through an appointment process from highly qualified applicants. The district courts also appoint special judges, who handle certain kinds of cases, such as small claims and divorces. These judges are selected by the District judges from qualified applicants. Federal district judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Federal magistrates are selected by the Federal district judges. In all courts, cases are randomly assigned to the various judges. You have no choice concerning which judge will hear your case. Juries are randomly selected from a jury wheel of licensed drivers within each state judicial district and, in the case of federal court juries, from a jury wheel of registered voters and drivers license holders. If you cannot settle your differences through negotiation, mediation, arbitration or some other means, then you should pursue litigation through the courts with your lawyer. Characteristics of Litigation: Involuntary - a defendant must participate (no choice) Formal and structured rules of evidence and procedure Each party has the opportunity to present its evidence and argument and crossexamine the other side - there are procedural safeguards Public - court proceedings and records are open The decision is based on the law The decision can be final and binding Right of appeal exists Losing party may pay costs Some Other Dispute Resolution Procedures and Where You May Find Them: If you have a problem with a new car, you may find automobile arbitration through the Better Business Bureau to be a solution for you. The manufacturer of your car may also have a process of resolving disputes. If you are involved in agriculture and have a farmer-creditor controversy, the Agricultural Mediation Program through Oklahoma State University and the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture may be helpful to you. Victim-offender mediation which can result in restitution to the victim is available through the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Other state and federal agencies sometimes offer settlement options in addition to their regular administrative procedures. For example, mediation of workers' compensation claims is now available. If you do go to court, in addition to court-sponsored mediation or other ADR programs, you may find more procedures that encourage settlement or can resolve the dispute. Your attorney can tell you about the processes available in the court in which your case is pending. Appellate courts, such as our state Supreme Court and the federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, have settlement conference opportunities. Don't forget Small Claims Court where a judge can decide your dispute - usually without a lawyer - if your claim is valued under $6,000. Early Settlement mediation is often available here to offer settlement assistance first so you may not need to go before the judge. Managing meetings and reaching consensus within any kind of organization or group can often be achieved through the assistance of a trained facilitator. Facilitators are available through various non-profit support centers and service leagues or other community organizations. School Peer Mediation - Peaceful Resolutions for Oklahoma Schools (PROS), a project of the Oklahoma Bar Association/Law-related Education Department and Early Settlement, is training students to mediate their own disputes. Effective communication and conflict resolution skills classes may be available in your community by contacting the Law-related Education Department at the Oklahoma Bar Association thanks to a partnership with Leadership Oklahoma. The OBA Alternative Dispute Resolution Section may be a resource to identify additional options. CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHOD The method you use to resolve your dispute will depend upon your personal needs and the nature of your particular dispute. You may want to consult with an attorney to help diagnose which process or combination of processes best serves your objectives for your particular situation. Considerations Include: whether you want the dispute to be resolved privately and confidentially or in a public court setting; whether you want an informal setting and a more flexible process or one that is more formal and has specific rules to follow; whether you want to have control over the outcome or you need someone else, a person with expertise (an arbitrator), or a person with authority (a judge), to make the decision; whether the time necessary to reach a final decision is important to you; whether the costs involved in pursuing a particular method are a factor; whether the parties intend to maintain a relationship; whether your dispute should be decided on questions of law, resolved with business principles or a solution found through other fair, yet practical, means; whether the process or its outcome is binding and easily enforceable There will always be times when a courtroom trial is called for. Often, however, you are better served by one of the other alternative dispute resolution processes described in this brochure. Hopefully, this information about the available choices will help you select the dispute resolution technique best suited to your individual needs. With a better understanding of the considerations that can help you choose the most appropriate method, your conflicts can be more successfully managed and your disputes more satisfactorily resolved. Reviewed December 2006 -====== http://www.gppac.net/documents/pbp/part1/2_reconc.htm The Meaning of Reconciliation By Hizkias Assefa* Compared to conflict handling mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation, adjudication, and arbitration, the approach called ‘reconciliation’ is perhaps the least well understood. Its meaning, processes, and application have not been clearly articulated or developed. A place to start understanding what it entails might be by trying to distinguish it from the other approaches used in peacemaking and peacebuilding. If we were to look at the ‘degree of mutual participation by the conflict parties in the search for solutions to the problems underlying their conflict’ we could place these approaches in a spectrum as follows. (See Figure 1) At the left end of the spectrum, we find approaches where mutual participation is minimal. The use of force by one of the parties to impose a solution would be an example of a mechanism that would be placed at this end of the spectrum. Further to the right of the spectrum, we could place mechanisms such as adjudication. Here a third party, instead of an adversary, imposes a solution to the conflict. However, the mutual participation of the parties in the choice of the solution is comparatively higher here than in the first. In the adjudication process, at least the parties have an opportunity to present their cases, to be heard, and submit their arguments for why their preferred solution should be the basis upon which the decision is made. Nonetheless, the choice of the solution is made by a third party, and the decision is backed by force (enforced) which ensures that the losing party complies. Figure 1 Arbitration is placed further to the right of ‘adjudication’. Here, the participation of the parties is even higher since both adversaries can choose who is going to decide the issues under dispute, whereas in adjudication the decision maker is already appointed by the state. The parties in conflict can sometimes identify the basis upon which their case will be decided and whether the outcome will be binding or not. Although the mutual involvement of the parties in the decision making process is much higher than adjudication, the solution is still decided by an outsider and, depending on the type of arbitration, the outcome could be imposed by the power of the law. Further to the right on the spectrum we find negotiation. Here the participation of all the involved parties in the search for solution is very high. It is the parties themselves who have to formulate the issues, and find a resolution that is satisfactory to all of them. In this situation, however, particularly in bargaining type negotiations (as opposed to problem-solving type of negotiations) 1, the final choice of the solution might depend on the relative power position of the adversaries rather than on what might be the most satisfactory solution to everyone involved. The party with the higher bargaining leverage might end up getting the most out of the negotiations. Mediation is a special type of negotiation where the parties’ search for mutually satisfactory solutions are assisted by a third party. The third party’s role is to minimize obstacles to the negotiation process including those that emanate from power imbalance. Unlike adjudication, however, in the final analysis it is the decision and agreement of the conflict parties that determines how the conflict will be resolved. Towards the far right of the spectrum we find reconciliation. This approach not only tries to find solutions to the issues underlying the conflict but also works to alter the adversaries’ relationships from that of resentment and hostility to friendship and harmony. Of course, for this to happen, both parties must be equally invested and participate intensively in the resolution process.2 Before we move on to examine the insights that emerge from this spectrum, it will clarify our thinking if we quickly glance at one more issue of definitions and distinctions. The conflict handling mechanisms illustrated in the spectrum can be categorized into three groups which we will call conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict prevention approaches. Conflict management approaches generally tend to focus more on mitigating or controlling the destructive consequences that emanate from a given conflict than on finding solutions to the underlying issues causing it. On the other hand, conflict resolution approaches aim at going beyond mitigation of consequences and attempt to resolve the substantive and relational root-causes so that the conflict comes to an end. While conflict management and resolution are reactive, they come into motion once conflict has surfaced, conflict prevention tries to anticipate the destructive aspects of the conflict before they arise and attempts to take positive measures to prevent them from occurring. Most of the mechanisms identified on the left hand of the spectrum are conflict management approaches. The use of military force for deterrence or in peace-keeping (separating the conflict parties from each other so that they do not keep inflicting harm on each other) are typical conflict management strategies. To the extent that adjudication, arbitration, and bargaining negotiations do not become avenues to solve the underlying issues of the conflict, and in most instances they do not, they become mere stop-gap conflict management measures. But if they provide an opportunity to work out not only differences on substantive issues but also negative relationships, they can become conflict resolution mechanisms. „Justice is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reconciliation.‟ Observations We notice that as we move from the left to the right on the spectrum, i.e., as the participation of all the parties in the search for solution increases, the likelihood of achieving a mutually satisfactory and durable solution also increases. We know that solutions imposed by force will only last until the vanquished is able to muster sufficient force to reverse the situation. Solutions imposed by adjudication and arbitration, unless somehow the loser gives up, can always be frustrated by the latter’s endless appeals or lack of cooperation in the implementation process. If, however, the parties are engaged earnestly in the search for the solutions and are able to find resolutions that could satisfy the needs and interests of all involved, there could be no better guarantee for the durability of the settlements. It would be in the interest of every one to see to it that they are fully enforced. This is what we believe problemsolving negotiations, mediation, and reconciliation can do. What is noteworthy however is that as we move from the left to the right end of the spectrum, although the likelihood of effectiveness and durability of the solutions increases, our knowledge and understanding of the approaches to be utilized become sketchy, less developed and unsystematic. Our knowledge and methodology of conflict management approaches (the mechanisms on the left hand side of the spectrum) such as the use of force, adjudication, or arbitration are quite advanced. They are highly developed disciplines within institutions that command high respect and resources devoted to training and practice. Military and police science, jurisprudence and legal studies, as well as the entire military and police academies, law schools, ministries of defence and justice, police departments, courts, prison systems, are examples of these disciplines and institutions that advance the practice of these approaches. In contrast, conflict resolution approaches such as problem-solving negotiation and mediation are less developed and institutions and resources devoted to their training, advancement and practice are meager. Whatever is in place is voluntary and ad-hoc. Then, when we come to reconciliation, let alone establish procedures and institutions charged with the application of the concept, there is not even much understanding of what it means, especially, among social scientists. Religious people and theologians are a bit better equipped to discuss the concept. But even there, there is a great gap between articulation and translation of the ideas into practice. Healing and Reconciliation Despite the lack of knowledge about how to operationalize reconciliation, there is however no question about the tremendous need for it. In fact, it could be said that the need in today’s world is much greater than at any other time in the past. One reason is that conflict management strategies are not adequate to deal with the kinds of contemporary conflicts raging in many parts of the world. Especially since the end of the Cold War, civil wars have replaced interstate wars as the most predominant large scale social conflicts. To a certain extent, in interstate conflicts strategies aimed merely at separating the conflicting parties might suffice. Even if the underlying issues of the conflict are not resolved, the separation could help avoid the recurrence of the conflict. Because states tend to isolate themselves from each other by their national boundaries, the task of separating them by peace-keeping forces is relatively easier. However, in civil war situations the relationships between the protagonists is much more intimate and complex. In most cases, the parties share the same geographic area and even community, there might be strong economic interdependence between them, they usually have all sorts of social ties among each other including intermarriages. In these instances it is quite difficult to separate the protagonists since the boundaries between them are very difficult to draw. Even if it is possible to do it for a short while, it is not feasible to think of conflict management strategies such as separation as long term solutions. For that matter, even decisions imposed by adjudication or other such processes will not be solutions since the winning party cannot expect to enjoy its victory without facing the consequences of the loser’s wrath. Therefore, in civil war situations conflict management strategies are not adequate. One has to move towards conflict resolution and reconciliation processes where not only the underlying issues to the conflicts are resolved to everyone’s satisfaction but also the antagonistic attitudes and relationships between the adversaries are transformed from negative to positive. Moreover, even in interstate relations, we are increasingly realizing that the components of the modern international system are no more the 19th century autarchic states. The globe is shrinking and the fates of peoples of the world are becoming more and more inextricably intertwined. Thus, it would be increasingly difficult to expect unilateral Tuareg leaders on their way to the Mali Flame of Peace approaches to handling conflicts ceremony, 1996. Photo: Henny van der Graaf. such as imposition of solutions by force as viable approaches. In an interdependent and closely interconnected world even those that are supposedly weak can have their own way of subverting or undermining the imposed order. Therefore, those groups must somehow be enabled to participate in the search for solutions in their conflicts even with the more powerful actors. In fact, the democratic values that the current international order is trying to promote as a universal value in all societies of the world necessitates movement more and more towards integrative negotiation, mediation and reconciliation as the predominant ways of dealing with conflict instead of unilateral measures that entail the use of coercion. What Does Reconciliation Entail? Reconciliation as a conflict handling mechanism entails the following core elements: a) Honest acknowledgment of the harm/injury each party has inflicted on the other; b) Sincere regrets and remorse for the injury done: c) Readiness to apologize for one’s role in inflicting the injury; d) Readiness of the conflicting parties to ‘let go’ of the anger and bitterness caused by the conflict and the injury; e) Commitment by the offender not to repeat the injury; f) Sincere effort to redress past grievances that caused the conflict and compensate the damage caused to the extent possible; g) Entering into a new mutually enriching relationship. Reconciliation then refers to this new relationship that emerges as a consequence of these processes. What most people refer to as ‘healing’ is the mending of deep emotional wounds (generated by the conflict) that follow the reconciliation process. A very important aspect of the process of reconciliation and one that distinguishes it from all the other conflict handling mechanisms is its methodology. In most of the conflict handling mechanisms such as adjudication, arbitration, and for that matter even negotiation and mediation the method used for establishing responsibility for the conflict or its consequences is adversarial. In these processes, the parties present their grievances and make a case for the adversary’s fault or responsibility, thereby demanding that it should be the latter that should make amends. Each party begins by defending its own behaviour and denying its own guilt or responsibility until the opponent proves it to his or her satisfaction or to the satisfaction of outside observers, be they judges or mediators. In such a process, one’s behaviour is always explained as a reaction to the behaviour of the adversary. The typical pattern of the interaction is: ‘I did this to you because you did such and such a thing to me!’ The aim is to get the adversary to change his or her future conduct by proving the person’s guilt. Of course, the expectation is that both parties will change each other in this way and will eventually transform their relationship from negative to positive. „Despite the lack of knowledge about how to operationalize reconciliation, On the other hand, the essence of reconciliation is the voluntary initiative of the conflict parties to acknowledge their responsibility and guilt. The interactions that transpire between the parties are not only meant to communicate one’s grievances against the actions of the adversary, but also to engage in self-reflection about one’s own role and behaviour in the dynamic of the conflict. In other words, in this kind of dialogue, as much as one attributes guilt and responsibility to the adversary for the damage generated by the conflict, one has to also be self-critical and acknowledge responsibility for his or her own role in the creation or perpetuation of the conflict and hurtful interaction. The aim of such interaction is that, in the final analysis, each of the parties acknowledges and accepts his or her responsibility and out of such recognition seeks ways to redress the injury that has been inflicted on the adversary, to refrain from further damage, and to construct new positive relationships. there is no question about the tremendous need for it.‟ It is true that in both reconciliation and other conflict resolution mechanisms the process of dialogue is expected to generate change and transformation. In reconciliation, however, the forces for change are primarily internal and voluntary; while in the other approaches they are external and to a certain extent coerced. In the situation where the source is external it is possible that it might be the adversary’s skill in marshaling and presenting its arguments; its strong will and intransigence; or its capacity to manipulate, exert pressure, or administer punishment that might intimidate the other party into accepting responsibility and settlement. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is questionable to what extent reluctant acceptance of guilt can serve as a force for significantly altering the future conduct and relationship between the adversaries. This is not to imply that it is not possible to induce change in behaviour and relationships by forces outside the person, nor that every person changes his or her behaviour and relationships wilfully or voluntarily. The point here is that unless the need for change is internalized, the change is likely to be only temporary. The relationship would not have been significantly altered, and the conflict would not have found enduring solutions. It would emerge again as soon as circumstances change. More enduring transformation is likely to emerge when motivated by an internal need to change, especially when it emanates from self-reflection and criticism. Reconciliation and Justice Here it would be important to clarify the often misunderstood relationship between reconciliation and justice. Especially in horrendous conflict situations like Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia and others, many have argued that reconciliation is not appropriate because it is too soft on criminal conduct of offenders, and might even encourage it. They feel that justice (usually meaning the punishment of the offenders) precedes reconciliation. However, this argument presents a false dichotomy. An attempt at reconciliation without addressing the injustice in the situation is indeed a mockery and belittling the suffering of the victim. There cannot be reconciliation without justice. Justice and equity are at the core of reconciliation. The central question in reconciliation is not whether justice is done, but rather how one goes about doing it in ways that can also promote future harmonious and positive relationship between parties that have to live with each other whether they like it or not. Justice is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reconciliation. Reconciliation takes the concern for justice a step further and is preoccupied with how to rebuild a more livable, and psychologically healthy environment between former enemies where the vicious cycle of hate, deep suspicion, resentment, and revenge does not continue to fester. For this reason, the methodology used to arrive at justice in the reconciliation process is different from that used to arrive at justice in the conventional (juridical) approach. The aim of the latter processes (particularly of the criminal justice process) is primarily to identify guilt and administer the punishment that the law requires with little attention to healing the bitterness and resentment that exist between the parties in the conflict. Identifying ways in which offenders are assisted to redress the material and emotional damage they have inflicted through self-reflection, acknowledgment of responsibility, remorse, and compensation would be an important step towards establishing an environment of reconciliation. The approach known as ‘restorative justice’ as opposed to ‘retributive justice’ brings us closer to the point where justice can be done but at the same time the possibilities for reconciliation are enhanced. 3 Applying this concept in some of the catastrophic situations like Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia or Chile, reconciliation does not mean that the offenders are just pardoned. It means creating a process and an environment where the offenders take the responsibility to acknowledge their offense and get motivated to change the situation and relationship in a positive and durable manner instead of keep denying their guilt until it is proven to them by the juridical process. The important thing to note is that to the extent the offenders keep denying their guilt, even if their responsibility is proved juridically and they are punished, the internal change that needs to take place to change the relationship from destructive to constructive, from hate to cooperation and harmony may not happen. Particularly in group conflicts, the punishment of the offenders alone does not prevent them or their followers and (at times, even their descendants) from continuing to hate and desiring to retaliate against those that punished them or their forefathers. Reconciliation has a much better chance of stopping the cycle of violence and hatred that sometimes transcends generations than any other conflict handling mechanism. Although flawed in many ways, this is what the experiments with Truth and Reconciliation Commission in conflict-ravaged societies are trying to do. In a number of instances, these commissions have been able to go as far as obtaining voluntarily acknowledgment of guilt by offenders. But they have not gone far enough to get them to demonstrate sincere remorse, or take active steps to compensate and repair the relationship vis a vis their victims. 4 Notes 1 See Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes, for the distinction between the bargaining type (distributive) and problem-solving type (integrative) negotiation approaches. 2 Of course these categories are neither exhaustive nor water-tight. There are many more mechanisms that mix the various types and fall somewhere in between. One example is a mechanism that has come to be known as med/arb, where the process starts as mediation with the voluntary and full participation of the parties, but if that fails in resolving the problem, the solution is determined by a third party, an arbitrator. There are also other non-formal processes such as advocacy by interest groups, political mobilization at the grass-roots level in order to put pressure on leaders, etc. that can be placed at various points on the spectrum. ‘Advocacy’ operates in the adjudication framework although the body to whom the appeal is done might be the courts of national or international pubic opinion instead of the regular courts of law. ‘Political mobilization’ could be seen as a tactic in the negotiation process in which the adversaries are marshaling their forces to improve their bargaining leverage or capacity to be heard and be taken seriously. 3 See Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses, (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press), 1990 4 For a critique of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and more detailed elaboration of concepts, approaches, and methodologies, and examples see Hizkias Assefa, Process of Expanding and Deepening Engagement, Reconciliation Methodology in Large Scale Social Conflicts (forthcoming). *Hizkias Assefa is Professor of Conflict Studies, Conflict Transformation Programme, at Eastern Mennonite University, USA, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, USA. He is the founder and co-ordinator of the African Peacebuilding and Reconciliation Network in Nairobi, Kenya. He works as a mediator and facilitator in civil war situations in many parts of Africa from his base in Nairobi. He is the author of several books, including Peace and Reconciliation as a Paradigm: A Philosophy of Peace and Its Implications on Conflict, Governance and Economic Growth in Africa (Majestic Press, 1993), and Process of Expanding and Deepening Engagement: Methodology for Reconciliation Work in Large Scale Social Conflicts (forthcoming). http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/onlinetraining/resolution/stepsoverview.htm Conflict Resolution Menu 8 Steps: Overview The following process is useful for effectively managing conflict in your workplace, in relationships, or in other situations where you have an interest in seeking a negotiated solution. These steps won't guarantee an agreement, but they greatly improve the likelihood that the problems can be understood, solutions explored, and consideration of the advantages of a negotiated agreement can occur within a relatively constructive environment. They provide useful strategies to consider that reduce the impacts of stress, fears and "surprise" factors involved in dealing with conflict. 1. "Know Thyself" and Take Care of Self o Understand your "perceptual filters," biases, triggers o Create a personally affirming environment (eat, sleep, exercise) 2. Clarify Personal Needs Threatened by the Dispute o Substantive, Procedural, and Psychological Needs o Look at BATNA, WATNA, and MLATNA o Identify "Desired Outcomes" from a Negotiated Process 3. Identify a Safe Place for Negotiation o Appropriate Space for Discussion/ Private and Neutral o Mutual Consent to Negotiate/ Appropriate Time o Role of Support People (Facilitators, Mediators, Advocates), as needed o Agreement to Ground rules 4. Take a Listening Stance into the Interaction o "Seek first to understand, then to be understood" (Covey) o Use Active Listening skills 5. Assert Your Needs Clearly and Specifically o Use "I-messages" as tools for clarification o Build from what you have heard - continue to listen well 6. Approach Problem-Solving with Flexibility o Identify Issues Clearly and Concisely o Generate Options (Brainstorm), While Deferring Judgment o Be open to "tangents" and other problem definitions o Clarify Criteria for Decision-Making 7. Manage Impasse with Calm, Patience, and Respect o Clarify Feelings o Focus on Underlying Needs, Interests, and Concerns o Take a structured break, as needed 8. Build an Agreement that Works o Review "Hallmarks" of a Good Agreement o Implement and Evaluate - Live and Learn http://www.wittcom.com/how_to_resolve_conflict.htm How to Resolve Conflict If you view conflict as something that shouldn't happen, something that harms relationships, it becomes negative. And then you avoid it and hope it will go away. But if you see conflict as a fact of life, an opportunity to strengthen relationships, you have a way of resolving conflict by turning it into something creative. Try these "10 Ways to Resolve Conflict." 1. Agree on a mutually acceptable time and place to discuss the conflict. 2. State the problem as you see it and list your concerns. o o Make "I" statements. Withhold judgments, accusations, and absolute statements ("always" or "never"). 3. Let the other person have his/her say. o o Do not interrupt or contradict. Do not allow name-calling, put-downs, threats, obscenities, yelling, or intimidating behavior. 4. Listen and ask questions. o Ask fact-based questions (who? what? where? when? how?) to make sure you understand the situation. Ask exploratory questions (what if? what are you saying? is this the only solution to our problem? what if we did such and such? are there other alternatives to this situation?). Avoid accusatory "why" questions (why are you like that?). Use your own words to restate what you think the other person means and wants. Acknowledge the person's feelings and perceptions. o o o 5. Stick to one conflict at a time — to the issue at hand. o Do not change the subject or allow it to be changed. "I understand your concern, but I'd like to finish what we're talking about before we discuss it." 6. Seek common ground. o o What do you agree on? What are your shared concerns? 7. Brainstorm solutions to the conflict that allow everyone to win. 8. Request behavior changes only. o o o o Don't ask others to change their attitudes. Don't ask them to "feel" differently about something. Don't ask them to "be" different. If you want them to "stop doing" something, suggest an alternative action. 9. Agree to the best way to resolve the conflict and to a timetable for implementing it. o Who will do what by when? 10. If the discussion breaks down, reschedule another time to meet. Consider bringing in a third party. http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/resolving-conflicts-quickly-and-peacefully/ 7 Tips for Resolving Conflicts Quickly and Peacefully Written by Stephen Hopson - 85 Comments Everyone has to deal with difficult people, whether they are argumentative, abusive, stubborn, or combative. The question is, how can you assert your own rights without creating an unnecessary incident? In most cases, angry people are screaming to be heard. They want to be valued, loved, and listened to. They want to feel important but aren’t able to express themselves constructively. With the right attitude, it’s possible to get past these insecurities and reach an understanding. These 7 strategies will help you setting disputes quickly and peacefully for the benefit of everyone involved: 1. Remain calm. Be still and say nothing. Let the storm run its course. Often times the angry person wants to provoke you. Arguing is ineffective because it raises barriers. Consider how I handled the barber situation. 2. Let the other person do the talking. He or she will soon grow tired of it. Sometimes that’s all they want. To be heard. To feel important. Everyone wants to feel important. Some people just express it in ways that are counterproductive. 3. Genuinely consider the other person’s point of view. Imagine yourself in his shoes. Never say “you’re wrong.” In fact, try hard to look for areas of agreement and build on them. 4. There’s power in the words “Yes, yes, I see exactly what you’re saying. You mean…….” This shows the other person you hear him/her. That’s all they usually want — to be validated. By agreeing with them, you gradually break down the other person’s anger. 5. If the situation turns verbally abusive, put a stop to it. Firmly but calmly state: “You’re very angry right now and you’re saying things you don’t mean (give them the benefit of the doubt). I’m going to excuse myself. We can talk again after you calm down.” Then leave the room or ask them to leave. 6. If you are wrong, quickly admit it and take responsibility. You could say, “You’re absolutely right, it is my fault and here is what I’ll do to fix it.” Even if you’re NOT wrong, at least give them the benefit of the doubt, “I may be wrong, let’s look at the facts together.” It’s hard to argue with that! These words have tremendous power. Not only does it validate the other person’s viewpoint but it also diffuses the tension. You might be surprised by what happens afterwards. The person could end up defending you. You’d be amazed how an attacker suddenly becomes an ally. 7. Use the power of visualization. If you’re dealing with someone you interact with on a daily basis (like a boss or co-worker), try to imagine that person as a loving spiritual being. I did this with a boss I had at a Wall Street bank several years ago. He was an absolute tyrant and gave everyone a hard time. In retrospect, he was clearly unhappy and insecure. http://www.articlesbase.com/human-resources-articles/organisational-culture-and-employeebehaviour-1897458.html Organisational Culture And Employee Behaviour Posted: Feb 23, 2010 |Comments: 0 | Views: 3,991 The essay will look at the link between organisational culture and employee behaviour. This will act as the foundation of the strategies or methods that employers can use to achieve organisational goals. Because organisational culture is defined as the associated norms of an organisation, while employee behaviour is seen as the outward expression of an employee's perception of organisational culture, then organisational culture precedes employee behaviour. Leaders have the ability to influence and manage organisational culture. When this is done effectively, then employees will express those values positively through their behaviour. The following qualities will be examined in detail in the essay; corporate communication decision making motivation other character traits All the above character traits can be used by leaders to influence organisational culture and hence employee behaviour. First of all, there will be a need to change corporate communication in order to create an open and transparent organisational culture. This can be achieved through giving clear communication thus eliminating here-say among members of the organisation. This enhances the way employees perceive themselves and will also affect their behaviour (Robbins, 2004) Decision making within any organisation needs to be done in such a way that it enhances independence. Employees need to feel that their respective organisations trust them to the point of allowing them to make decisions within the organisations. Experts have suggested that organisations where there is less bureaucracy in the process of decision making are generally more efficient. The reason why this occurs is that most employees will not waste time trying to maintain protocol. Details of how mangers can achieve this will be examined in the essay. Leaders need to motivate their employees. There are various ways in which this can be achieved; through reward systems, through allowances, flexible working hours and holiday provisions. Employees can also be motivated by possessing greater autonomy in the decision making process. Details of how managers can achieve this will be analysed in the essay. The overall effect of motivation is that it makes workers more energised. This can create a culture of hard work and will be manifested through employee behaviour. These interlink age will be elaborated further in the essay. (Dessler, 2001) The essay will also look at other quality traits that managers can utilise to influence their employees. This can be achieved through justice and honesty when handling employee cases. Leaders also need to employ participative character traits in order to affect organisational culture hence employee behaviour. Participation means collaboration between leaders and employees during the execution of tasks. The validity of this argument will be further scrutinised in relation to organisational culture. Managers also need to understand their employees and use motivational tools that relate to their employees character traits. By doing this, employers will enhance a culture of hard work and this will propagated in employee's behavioural traits. Introduction Organisational culture may be defined as the accepted norms and values that are associated with a particular company. These norms are seen as distinctive to a particular organisation and normally affect the way specific organisations go about implementing their organisational goals. These norms are also passed on from one group of the organisation to another. The most fundamental question that managers and other organisational stakeholders need to answer is what is the relevance of organisational culture to the way they go about their activities? Organisational culture is closely related to organisational strategy. Managers who normally experience problems are those ones who fail to merge organisational culture to their strategies. If new strategies are incompatible with the kind of culture prevailing at that time, then chances are they might fall fail. Numerous authors have explained how many companies have failed in their endeavours to change their organisation because they had a plan to reorganise and transform without looking at prevailing culture. (Locke, 1976) Organisational culture related to employee behaviour Organisational culture can be tackled in three realms; these are; behaviour and artefacts values assumptions and beliefs Assumptions and beliefs indicate all the underlying values that have been taken for granted by particular organisation. These are usually values that have become so common to a specific organisation that no one even notices that they are there. Values on the other hand are issues that determine behaviour. It should be noted that values are more internal and are only expressed through behaviour. The latter term; behaviour denotes the visible elements of culture prevailing within a certain organisation. These can be analysed through the organisational dress code, the way employees use technology in their tasks, how work spaces are divided and even the way top executives are treated within the organisation. All the above elements should be understood by managers and implemented in order to influence and affect organisational culture. Corporate communication It is essential to remember that any particular form of organisational culture is affected by the way employees, employersand shareholders communicate to each other. Organisational culture is reflected in the manner communication is made within the firm. Corporate communication normally refers to the way companies distribute or disseminate their information either externally or internally. Internal communication will refer to the way employees share information within their organisation and also the way suppliers, partners and investors will share knowledge with the company. Leaders should endeavour to create organisational cultures in which employees represent the best image of the company. (Brown, 1995) Corporate communication normally affects the way the company is perceived by the external market. It may involve internal relations, crisis communication, corporate social responsibility, issue management and change management. These are all very critical in the determination of how an organisation will go about implementing its tasks and objectives. Sometimes, there may be a need to change certain policies. This is something that will need corporate communication. If done in an appropriate manner, it can affect organisational culture in the future and consequently employee behaviour. Sometimes internal corporate communication may be done to check on the progress of a certain plan to be conducted by the company. Managers should ensure that their communication is done transparently. It should also be done in a compassionate manner in order to make the employees feel as though they are an important part of the organisation and should not be undermined by certain rigid communication procedures. It is also important to make sure that communication is done openly. Most managers make the mistake of letting rumours or here-say be the source of their communications. Most of the time, suchemployers will not bother correcting or rectifying information. This kind of communication normally persists in cases where there is a high system of hierarchy. Leaders need to realise that they have the ability to influence organisational culture hence employee behaviour through the types of communication that they adopt for their organisation. Good corporate communication is one in which all the virtues mentioned above are incorporated. (Bate, 1994) Leaders need to realise that they can utilise corporate communication to influence organisational culture hence employee behaviour as they are communicated to the consumer. Organisations that build a system of loyalty through open communication will instil these values and will make their employees trickle this down to their clients. Such employees will ensure that their clients' needs are met through discussions with them and will therefore contribute towards their satisfaction. Such organisations will normally have greater competitive advantage in comparison to others in the market. Decision making Decision making processes are also ways in which organisational culture can be transformed thus changing employee behaviour and competitive advantage. Organisations where employees are; confused about their enumeration systems or those ones where employees' job description contracts always come in late or those ones where new employees are never recruited on time, may have problems with employee behaviour hence service delivery. It is essential for leaders to employ the expertise and knowledge that its employees have in their decision making processes. This is because staff members are the ones who eventually have to carry the burden of those decisions. Leaders need to realise that employees have a lot of contact with clients and may be more knowledgeable about consumer preference. It is therefore wise to learn about those ideas from their employees. This will make employees more responsible and will instil an organisational culture that is full of cooperation. (Kilmann et al, 1986) CEO s and other types of leaders need to create a free environment where employees are allowed to think for themselves. This will go a long way in enhancing efficiency because too much bureaucracy slows down service delivery. Employees should be encouraged to contribute their views through regular meetings with managers or employers. This can also be topped up by freedom to elect an independent advisory group that will facilitate certain agreements between employees and their employers. Organisations that are characterised with top-down management structure and cultures rarely affect their employees' behaviour and will be less effective in achievement of sustainable advantage. Decision making as a method of influencing employee behaviour and organisational culture is effective in that it allows employees to be prepared psychologically for business activity. Organisations in which decision making is largely left to the employee are characterised by fast and intellectual employees during treatment of clients. It should be noted that such employees are normally quite ready for nay occurrences in the firm since they contributed to its formation. Consequently, chances of meeting obstacles and objections during hours of business will be minimised by those employees and they will be more effective in their tasks. Examples of areas in which employees should be allowed to contribute to include aspects of products sold. Employees can make their contribution about how their product should be based on knowledge acquired from consumers. They could also give their ideas about pricing strategies. Through their interaction with clients, employees will have the ability to know what consumers are looking for in their area of interest are. Such issues will contribute towards better employee behaviour and hence organisational behaviour. (Benedict, 1934) Motivation Motivation can be seen as way of influencing employee's behaviour in such a way that it will lead to positive results within the organisation. This is one of the most instrumental factors in the process of affecting employee behaviour and hence organisational culture. Motivation can boost an employee's self esteem and will influence their capacity to work. Motivation is especially necessary in instances where an organisation is undergoing changes. At that time, there is a need for a motivational plan that will include all the new environmental factors that will come into play. This motivational plan should bring out the following aspects in the employees; confidence honesty integrity (Judge & Watanabe, 1993) Motivation can be achieved through a variety of channels. First and foremost, an organisation needs to implement rewards systems that create an atmosphere of enthusiasm amongst its employees. It would be preferable if an organisation links reward systems to organisational success. This is the fundamental principle behind best practice theories. In best practice theories, employees normally feel motivated to do better when they can see the results of the efforts./ At the same time, employers need to avoid linking performance with enumeration for specific individuals within its organisation. When employers adopt such a system of enumeration, then they will only be dealing with temporary solutions. Linking enumeration to individual performance usually creates negative energies in the organisation. Employees may look for shortcuts in order to meet their targets. Others may become hostile towards their counterparts. It is therefore important to adopt fair distribution systems in enumeration so as to maintain harmony and to create a culture of looking at the ‘bigger picture'. Another method that managers/ employers can use to motivate their employees is through the use of allowances. For example, they could [provide certain holidays and flexible working hours that could encourage their employees to work harder. Organisations should also endeavour to provide safe environments for their employees especially in the construction and industrial sectors. They could provide their employees with all the necessary resources to go about their daily activities. This will give them more morale to continue with their tasks because they know their health or well being is not in any danger. Another source of motivation stem from flexible organisational structure. Firms that allow employees to make their own decision or those ones that allow them to have some form of autonomy in their project group will go a long way in enhancing motivation within the organisation. Motivation can also be achieved by institution of training and development strategies. This can be achieved for both new and old employees. Motivation and training are interlinked; training instils employees with the necessary skills and knowledge necessary continue with their day to day tasks. Training done on a regular basis ensures that employees have confidence when handling clients or when doing other technical skills. This will contribute to the nature of service delivery in the company and there will be greater achievement of organisational culture. (Bartol et al, 2005) Overly, motivation gives employees the energy and drive to bring positive changes to the organisation. When managers use motivational tools regularly, they will create an organisation culture that has extremely motivated individuals; this will be manifested in their output or behaviour. The latter will be directed towards achievement of organisational goals and such companies will be way above the rest. Employing specific character traits to affect employee behaviour Managers with the right qualities have the ability to affect organisational culture and hence employee behaviour. Managers should endeavour to display attributes of justice and honesty. This can be achieved through the honesty during interaction with employees. When leaders need to solve disputes between their employees, they should do this in a fast and fair manner. The disagreeing parties should be accommodated effectively in this process. By being just, employers will be showing their employees that the company is on their side and this will go a long way in enhancing transparent organisational culture. Such a culture will be depicted by committed workers who have confidence in their organisation. (Allen, 1985) Another quality that should be emphasised by managers is the participative culture. This can be achieved by working with employees. Organisations should try their best to create an environment where employers and employees collaborate to complete tasks. There is nothing that will many employees over like a leader who ‘walks his talk'. Such employees will be encouraged to place more efforts or to go that extra mile because they realise that their employees will do the same too. Leaders could also try to be more understanding of their employees. They should try and learn their employees and understand what the most important things to their employees are. Some employees may be motivated to work harder by money. Some employees may be motivated by continuous challenges in their tasks. On the other hand, others may prefer seeing the satisfaction on clients' faces. If employers can understand their employees as individuals, then they can customise motivational tools to create an organisational culture where most of the employees are satisfied by their motivational tools. This kind of culture will be depicted in the way most of these employees behave. (Weick, 1979) Conclusion Organisational culture is linked to employee behaviour in that the latter is an expression of the former. If managers try their best to institute changes in the organisation that influence organisational culture, this will be expressed by employee behaviour and can actually create competitive advantage. Reference: Allen, R. (1985): Four Phases for Bringing About Cultural Change; Oxford Kilmann, M. et al (1986): Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture; McGraw Hill Bate, S. (1994): Strategies for Cultural Change; Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford Benedict, R. (1934): Patterns of Culture; Houghton Mifflin, Boston Brown, A. (1995): Organisational Culture; Pitman Publishing, London Bartol, K, et al. (2005): Management: a pacific focus; 4th edition McGraw-Hill Book Company. Dessler, G (2001): Management, leading people and organisations in the 21st century; Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey. Locke, E. A. (1976): The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago; Rand McNally Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993): Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship; Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 Robbins, S. P. (2004): Organizational Behaviour - Concepts, Controversies, Applications; 4th Ed. Prentice Hall Weick, K.E. (1979): The Social Psychology of Organizing 2nd edtn; McGraw Hill http://www.organizationalculture101.com/effects-of-organizational-culture.html What Are Some Effects Of Organizational Culture? The effects of organizational culture are many and varied. Obviously the affects of organizational culture varies depending on whether the company has a strong culture or a weak culture, but there are some generalities that apply. This article is going to focus on the positive effects that occur when a company makes a concerted effort to establish a strong positive organizational culture at the work place. Many workers are spending more and more time at work. Depending on the job or company, many workers would put in 50, 60, or even more hours a week. The old axiom goes that a happy worker is a productive worker, and this is one of the effects of organizational culture. Workers want to enjoy work. They want to be interested in whatever’s going on that day, or long term goals. Being part of something meaningful that the worker enjoys makes the whole experience of work better, which will make them more productive. The effects of organizational culture should help provide this setting. A strong organization will focus on the environment it creates for its workers because that will help encourage a more efficient and productive company. Focusing on building and sustaining organizational culture shows employees that they are considered an important part of the company. This type of company generally has among the best response from its employees and thus will also have a much better chance of achieving its goals. There are five major reasons for wanting to create an appropriate and positive organizational culture for your company: 1) A strong organizational culture will attract high level talent. The high level talent entering corporations want to go to the companies that offer opportunities for advancement and to show off their talents. The best people can be choosy and they will strongly consider the companies where the organizational culture appears effective and positive and the workers get along with each other and are united in their goals of making the company better. 2) A strong organizational culture will help to keep your top level talent. If workers love the job they are at, and feel like valuable members of a team, then they’re not likely to want to go to another company. A top notch culture will not only attract the best new talent, but help retain them afterwards. 3) A strong culture creates energy and momentum. Once a strong organizational culture is built, it will gain a momentum of its own and will help to allow people to feel valued and express themselves freely. The excitement and energy this will cause will end up being a positive influence that affects every part of the organization. 4) A strong and successful organizational culture should alter the employees’ view of work. Most people think of work as boring, aggravating, stressful, etc. Instead of thinking of work as a place you have to go, a solid culture can make employees look forward to work. If the workers love coming into the job, they are going to work harder, and put more effort into any job. Everyone wants a job that they enjoy, and most people are willing to work: but it’s easier to work hard in a job you enjoy than in one you hate. Same principle applies to everyone else, too. 5) A strong and positive organizational culture will help make everyone more efficient and successful. From the lowest mail room worker to the highest CEO, a strong culture helps everyone. You often hear this type of description made with a professional football team.