Conflict Resolution Competence for Managers

Conflict Resolution Competence for Managers NIH Office of the Ombudsman Kevin Jessar, J.D., Ph.D. Deputy Ombudsman, NIH June 25, 2008 Part I: Introductions Kenneth A. Lechter  Lynda T. O’Sullivan  Liz Waetzig  Contexts for Workshop - 2008 PMAP requirement Other reasons why such a requirement is important Workshop Overview - Details: - Integrated Conflict Management Systems - Conceptually NIH - - Interest Based Negotiation Fundamentals Cross Cultural Literary NIH Resources Part II: The Office of the Ombudsman The Need for the Ombudsman  Impetus at NIH   Joint venture of OIR, HR, and EEO  Limits of formal systems Organizational selfcorrection Flexibility   Formal systems  Are often limited and ill suited to providing solutions  Fail to help people identify and expand options  Exacerbate tensions and conflicts  Are unavailable for many things arising in the life of an organization E.g., Claim of scientific misconduct/ fraud Kevin Jessar, NIH/CCR, January 2007 Ombudsman – resource to all NIH staff to address any workplace concern Confidential: off the record resource, except threats of violence; no one has to know you contacted us Neutral: as to person, position, outcome Informal/ Flexible: able to address things for which there are not procedures Independent: not integrated into line management •Especially reassuring to employees and managers Ombudsman trademarks – What We Do: • Identify issues and options • Clarify desired outcomes • Strategize – to whom and how can I best raise this issue or concern? • Assist with thinking through difficult situations (personally, professionally) • Facilitate understanding and resolution • Pursue organizational development NIH-wide through systemic feedback All of this is done in a confidential, neutral setting – with someone familiar with NIH culture. Ombudsman trademarks – How We Assist:  We offer (Generally):  Coaching - Sounding-board; “Devil’s advocate”  Referral  Facilitating difficult discussions (or mediation)  Shuttle diplomacy  Systems feedback  Use of scientific consultants Part III: Managing Conflict (and Emotion) Cohen and Cohen in Lab Dynamics argue: “[A]t the risk of considerable overgeneralization, the data suggest that as a group, science and technical professional are poorly attuned to the dynamics of their interactions with others and to the needs and feelings of those around them” (5). “[T]hought and deliberation [are] focused on scientific and technical matters and not at all on interpersonal consequences” (7). Paradox: These findings come at a time when scientific research is increasingly cross-disciplinary and moving towards a team science approach – both of which more urgently require these collaborative skills.  Studies found as well that scientists and technical professionals are largely emotionally stable, impulse controlled, and open and flexible in thought and behavior. “What this suggests is that despite less-thanoptimal interpersonal skills, technical professionals have a high capacity, motivation, and willingness to learn and improve. What they need is data showing the utility of improvement, as well as the opportunity to learn” (Cohen and Cohen 9).  What Makes workplace conflicts difficult?  Emotions running high can . . . Narrow our vision and creativity  Stifle curiosity, openness and playfulness of mind needed to solve problems  Suppress our recognition of nuances complex matrix of feeling and cognition  Reflect perception by participants that identity is somehow threatened   We cannot say that emotion should not enter in to the situation Once aroused emotions do not go away  There is often a symmetrical nature of emotional response – when someone raises their voice at you at you, you are more likely to do the same  It can be difficult to work with emotions when you are in a conflict – thus a 3rd party neutral can assist   Harvard PON research suggests underneath the multiplicity of emotions are 5 core concerns Appreciation  Affiliation  Autonomy  Status  Role   Each difficult conversation is really three difficult conversations    The “what happened?” conversation – truth, intentions and blame The feelings conversation – feelings are an intrinsic part of difficult conversations The identity conversation – Am I competent? Am I a good person? Am I worthy of love?  Before starting the difficult conversation determine What is your purpose in having this conversation? What do you hope to accomplish?  Is this the best way to address the issue and achieve your purpose?  Differentiate between attributing “blame” and understanding “contribution.” Blame looks backward, understanding looks to the future.   Once the conversation begins     Start from the third story – the difference between your story and theirs. Incorporate both perspectives in the discussion. Make clear what your purpose is. Invite the other to join as a partner in sorting out the situation.  Exploring the stories     Try to understand the other’s perspective. Acknowledge feelings about the issue. Share your viewpoint, intentions and feelings. Try to figure out how your differences developed. Part IV: “Interest-Based” Communication Handling Conflict: How can you gain perspective to handle a conflict optimally? As you Focus on the issues  Explore all interests underlying issues  Look for possibilities and opportunities and  Work toward satisfying the interests of all parties ...  Listening, Question-Asking, (Re)Framing will be keys to successful resolution Broadening Perspective: Listening What do we Sense? What data have we picked up or missed? How do we Think and Feel about the situation? Beliefs based on past experience Interpretations of events Expectations for the future How do we then feel? Based on thinking process How do we Act? What have we been doing/what have we tried? What options do we have for future? Broadening Perspective: Asking Useful Questions  Interest-Clarifying Questions:     What need/concern does this satisfy? What makes that important? How is that useful? What will having this do for you? Broadening Perspective: Reframing    Changing the wording or characterization of something to make it easier to understand, easier to accept, or more conducive to joint problem-solving. New concept must be data-based – i.e., grounded in the statements, facts provided. Useful for  Moving from positions to interests;  Giving parties another perspective;  De-escalating conflict;  Moving from past to present & future Broadening Perspective: Reframing Difficult interactions (or people) may reflect and be reframed to:  Difficult issues  Difficult tactics  Difficult frames (tragic, debunking, etc.)  Difficult systems issues  Risk: Provoking mistakes Reframing – Examples: 1. Frame issues as questions or problem statements.  “How can we . . . ?” “What can be done to . . .?” 2. Frame issues so that multiple solutions are possible.  Wrong: Who will have use of the centrifuge?  Better: ? 3. Separate issues or problems from people. De-personalize conflict.  Wrong: Let’s talk about John’s hogging all of the reagents.  Better: ? 4. Frame issues in terms of the situation or relationship of the parties rather than in terms of the person’s attitudes or behavior.  Wrong: Let’s talk about your negative attitude to helping anyone in the lab.  Better: ? 5. Frame issues so that they are a joint problem.  Wrong: How can Jean let everyone know on time when she’s changed lab policy on using the centrifuge?  Better: ? 6. Frame issues in terms of future relationships rather than guilt or innocence.  Wrong: Could we decide who was at fault for the samples being lost?  Better: ? 7. Frame issues in a manner that does not threaten any party’s sense of self or security.  Wrong: Let’s talk about the insensitive way the PI gives criticism.  Better: ? 8. Frame issues in an objective and neutral manner.  Wrong: Let’s talk about why the staff scientist is incompetent.  Better: ?