1. Managing Difficult Conflicts Richard A. Posthuma, J.D., Ph.D., GPHR, SPHR 2010

2. Anger in Disputes Parties often become angry in disputes because: They are frustrated with not being able to get what they want. They see that the other party has different interests than they do. 2 © SHRM 2010

3. Negative Effects of Anger Lower regard for opponent’s interest. Less accuracy in judging opponent’s interests. Use of more contentious tactics. More likely to reject settlement offers. Less thought about the consequences of one’s own negative actions. Less restraint in the face of threats. Lower levels of joint gains. Can lead to conflict spirals. Higher incidence of impasse. 3 © SHRM 2010

4. Positive Effects of Anger Indicates to the other person that the issue is very important. Indicates to the other person that you are less likely to make concessions. May induce the other party to yield when they are in a weaker position. 4 © SHRM 2010

5. Conflict Spirals Conflict spirals: > When parties engage in repeated contentious communications with each other. Problems: > Tend to induce reciprocating contentious communications from the other party. > Have momentum that is difficult to stop. Outcomes: > Impasse. > Settlements tend to be more one-sided, with the more powerful party winning. 5 © SHRM 2010

6. Norm of Reciprocity People tend to reciprocate similarly: Contentious behavior with contentious behavior (e.g., threats). Integrative behaviors with integrative behaviors (e.g., “How can we both get something out of this?”). 6 © SHRM 2010

7. Avoiding and Ending Conflict Spirals Don’t reciprocate > Can break the spiral. > May, however, erroneously signal a weakness or willingness to concede. GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension reduction) > Make and request small steps to reduce tensions. > Requires reciprocity. Mixed communications > Avoids sending weakness signals. Restrict precedents 7 © SHRM 2010

8. Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction (GRIT) One party initiates de-escalation by: > Announcing a concession. > Explaining that the concession is part of a strategy to reduce escalation. > Unilaterally executing the concession. Creates an opportunity for and expectation that the opponent will reciprocate with a concession. > Problem: They may just take the concession and not reciprocate. 8 © SHRM 2010

9. Mixed Communications Sometimes it’s best to mix a contentious statement with a conciliatory statement. Examples: Contentious: > Party 1 states, “If you persist in these demands, we’d prefer to see you in court, where we expect the judge to find in our favor.” Mixed: > Party 2 responds, “We are prepared to let a judge decide, but we think that we will both be better off if we reach an agreement based on our interests. Tell me again what your software needs are.” 9 © SHRM 2010

10. Labeling the Process Sometimes, “labeling” the process is helpful. It changes the focus to the negotiation process instead of on the parties’ positions. Examples of labeling the process that you’ve been following as ineffective: > “We seem to be going back and forth and getting nowhere.” > “We’re not going to settle things this way. Let’s focus on how we can go about settling the problem.” 10 © SHRM 2010

11. Restrict Precedents By restricting the degree to which a settlement may set a precedent, the stakes are lower and the parties may be more willing to reach an agreement. 11 © SHRM 2010

12. Summary Sometimes conflicts are particularly difficult to resolve. A common reason is that anger interferes with rational thinking and behaviors. Often, conflict spirals develop in which the conflict gets worse. There are several methods for managing difficult conflicts, managing emotions, and reducing the tensions that result from conflict spirals. 12 © SHRM 2010