Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches:Third-Party Interventions

<< Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches:Leadership and Authority, Group Interventions

Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches:Team Building, Team Building Process >>

Organization Development MGMT 628

Lesson 30

Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches

3. Third-Party Interventions

Third-party intervention focuses on conflicts arising between two or more people within the same

organization. Conflict is inherent in groups and organizations and can arise from a variety of sources,

include differences in personality, task orientation, and perceptions among group members, as well as

competition for scarce resources. To emphasize that conflict is neither good nor bad per se is important.

Conflict can enhance motivation and innovation and lead to greater understanding of ideas and views. On

the other hand, it can prevent people from working together constructively, destroying necessary task

interactions among group members. Consequently, third-party intervention is used primarily in situations in

which conflict significantly disrupts necessary task interactions and work relationships among members.

Third-party intervention varies considerably depending on the kind of issues underlying the conflict.

Conflict can arise over substantive issues, such as work methods, pay rates, and conditions of employment;

or it can emerge from interpersonal issues, such as personalities and misperceptions. When applied to

substantive issues, conflict resolution interventions often involve resolving labor-management disputes

through arbitration and mediation. The methods used in such substantive interventions require

considerable training and expertise in law and labor relations and generally are not considered part of OD

practice. For example, when union and management representatives cannot resolve a joint problem, they

can call upon the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to help them resolve the conflict. In addition,

"alternative dispute resolution" (ADR) practices increasingly are offered in lieu of more expensive and

time-consuming court trials. Conflicts also may arise at the boundaries of the organization, such as between

suppliers and the company or between a company and a public policy agency.

When conflict involves interpersonal issues, however, OD has developed approaches that help control and

resolve it. These third-party interventions help the parties interact with each other directly, facilitating their

diagnosis of the conflict and how to resolve it. That ability to facilitate conflict resolution is a basic skill in

OD and applies to all of the process interventions. Consultants, for example, frequently help organization

members resolve interpersonal conflicts that invariably arise during process consultation and team building.

Third-party consultation interventions cannot resolve all interpersonal conflicts in organizations, nor

should they. Many times, interpersonal conflicts are not severe or disruptive enough to warrant attention.

At other times, they simply may burn themselves out. Evidence also suggests that other methods may be

more appropriate under certain conditions. For example, managers tend to control the process and

outcomes of conflict resolution actively when they are under heavy time pressures, when the disputants are

not expected to work together in the future, and when the resolution of the dispute has a broad impact on

the organization. Under those conditions, the third party may resolve the conflict unilaterally with little

input from the conflicting parties.

An Episodic Model of Conflict:

Interpersonal conflict often occurs in iterative, cyclical stages known as "episodes." An episodic model is

shown in Figure 39. At times, issues underlying a conflict are latent and do not present any manifest

problems for the parties. Then something triggers the conflict and brings it into the open. For example, a

violent disagreement or frank confrontation can unleash conflictual behavior. Because of the negative

consequences of that behavior, the unresolved disagreement usually becomes latent again. And again,

something triggers the conflict, making it overt, and so the cycle continues with the next conflict episode.

Figure 39: A cyclical Model of Interpersonal Conflict

Organization Development MGMT 628

Conflict has both costs and benefits to the antagonists and to those in contact with them. Unresolved

conflict can proliferate and expand. An interpersonal conflict may be concealed under a cause or issue that

serves to make the conflict appear more legitimate. Frequently, the overt conflict is only a symptom of a

deeper problem.

The episode model identifies four strategies for conflict resolution. The first three attempts to control the

conflict and only the last approach try to change the basic issues underlying it. The first strategy is to

prevent the ignition of conflict by arriving at a clear understanding of the triggering factors and thereafter

avoiding or blunting them when the symptoms occur. For example, if conflict between the research and

production managers is always triggered by new product introductions, then senior management can warn

them that conflict will not be tolerated during the introduction of the latest new product. However this

approach may not always be functional and merely may drive the conflict underground until it explodes. As

a control strategy, however, this method may help to achieve a temporary cooling-off period.

The second control strategy is to set limits on the form of the conflict. Conflict can be constrained by

informal gatherings before a formal meeting or by exploration of other options. It also can be limited by

setting rules and procedures specifying the conditions under which the parties can interact. For example, a

rule can be instituted that union officials can attempt to resolve grievances with management only at weekly

grievance meetings.

The third control strategy is to help the parties cope differently with the consequences of the conflict. The

third-party consultant may work with the people involved to devise coping techniques, such as reducing

their dependence on the relationship, ventilating their feelings to friends, and developing additional sources

of emotional support. These methods can reduce the costs of the conflict without resolving the underlying

issues.

The fourth method is an attempt to eliminate or to resolve the basic issues causing the conflict. As Walton

points out, "There is little to he said about this objective because it is the most obvious and

straightforward, although it is often the most difficult to achieve."

Facilitating the Conflict Resolution Process:

Walton has identified a number of factors and tactical choices that can facilitate the use of the episode

model in resolving the underlying causes of conflict. The following ingredients can help third-party

consultants achieve productive dialogue between the disputants so that they examine their differences and

change their perceptions and behaviors: mutual motivation to resolve the conflict; equality of power

between the parties; coordinated attempts to confront the conflict; relevant phasing of the stages of

identifying differences and of searching for integrative solutions; open and clear forms of communication;

and productive levels of tension and stress.

Among the tactical choices identified by Walton do those having to do with diagnosis, the context of the

third-party intervention, and the role of the consultant. One of the tactics in third-party intervention is the

gathering of data, usually through preliminary interviewing. Group-process observations can also be used.

Data gathering provides some understanding of the nature and the type of conflict, the personality and

conflict styles of the individuals involved, the issues and attendant pressures, and the participants' readiness

to work together to resolve the conflict.

The context in which the intervention occurs is also important. Consideration of the neutrality of the

meeting area, the formality of the setting, the appropriateness of the time for the meeting (that is, a meeting

should not be started until a time has been agreed on to conclude or adjourn), and the careful selection of

those who should attend the meeting are all elements of this context.

In addition, the third-party consultant must decide on an appropriate role to assume in resolving conflict.

The specific tactic chosen will depend on the diagnosis of the situation. For example, facilitating dialogue

of interpersonal issues might include initiating the agenda for the meeting, acting as a referee during the

meeting, reflecting and restating the issues and the differing perceptions of the individuals involved, giving

feedback and receiving comments on the feedback, helping the individuals diagnose the issues in the

conflict, providing suggestions or recommendations, and helping the parties do a better job of diagnosing

the underlying problem.

The third-party consultant must develop considerable skill at diagnosis, intervention, and follow-up. The

third-party intervener must be highly sensitive to his or her own feelings and to those of others. He or she

also must recognize that some tension and conflict are inevitable and that although there can be an

optimum amount and degree of conflict, too much conflict can be dysfunctional for both the people

involved and the larger organization. The third-party consultant must be sensitive to the situation and able

to use a number of different intervention strategies and tactics when intervention appears to be useful.

Finally, she or he must have professional expertise in third-party intervention and must be seen by the

parties as neutral or unbiased regarding the issues and outcomes of the conflict resolution.

Application 6 describes an attempt to address conflict in an information technology unit. How does this

Organization Development MGMT 628

description fit with the process described above? What would you have done differently?

Application 6: Conflict Management at Balt Healthcare Corporation

Pete and Dan were managers in an IT department that was part of the information services group at Bait

Healthcare Corporation, a large organization that provided health-care products to a global market. Pete

was the general manager of the IT department and had been working in the unit for most of his 16 years

with Bait. The IT department had global responsibility for developing and maintaining the organization's

intranets, Websites, and internal networks. Pete ran his department with a traditional and formal

management style where communication traveled vertically through the hierarchy.

Dan recently had been assigned to Pete's department to operate a small experimental group charged with

developing e-commerce solutions for the organization and the industry. This was state-of-the-art

development work with enormous future implications for the organization as it explored the possibility of

sales, business-to-business and other supply chain opportunities on the Internet. Dan, in contrast to Pete,

had a management style that stressed the value of open communication channels to promote teamwork and

collaboration.

The biggest challenge in Dan's work was managing the transition from design into production. Senior

management at Bait believed that by assigning Dan's team to Pete's organization, the resources required to

manage this transition would be more readily available to Dan's group. In fact, it was generally agreed that

Pete's strengths complimented Dan's weaknesses. Whereas Dan was a better designer, Pete had operational

expertise that would help in bringing Dan's ideas online.

Unfortunately, the trouble started almost as soon as the assignment was announced. Although in front of

their bosses Pete had agreed to work with Dan to make the project a success, his support was lukewarm at

best. Dan and Pete had a history of conflict in the organization. Neither one respected the other's style, and

prior conflicts had been swept under the carpet, creating a considerable amount of pent-up animosity.

Operationally, when Dan's group needed resources to bring an idea online, Pete announced that all of his

people were busy and that he couldn't assign anyone to help. Similarly, anytime Dan needed access to a

piece of hardware within the IT unit. Pete made it complicated to get that access. Dan became increasingly

frustrated by Pete's lack of cooperation and he was quite open about his feelings of being sabotaged. His

complaints reached the highest levels of management as well as other members of the information services

staff.

After several frustrating attempts to speak with Pete about the situation, Dan consulted Marilyn, the vice

president for information services. Marilyn, like others in the organization, was aware of the conflict. She

requested assistance from the human resources manager and an organization development specialist. The

OD specialist met with Pete and Dan separately to understand the history of the conflict and each

individuals contribution to it. Although different styles were partly to blame, the differences in the two

work processes were also contributing to the problem. Pete's organization was primarily routine

development and maintenance tasks that allowed for considerable preplanning and scheduling of resources.

Dan's project, however, was highly creative and unpredictable. There was little opportunity to give Pete

advance notice regarding the experimental team's needs for equipment and other resources.

The OD specialist recommended several strategies to Marilyn, including a direct confrontation, the

purchase of additional hardware and software, and mandating the antagonists' cooperation. Marilyn

responded that there was no available budget for purchasing new equipment and admitted that she did not

have any confidence in her ability to facilitate the needed communication and leadership for her staff. She

asked the OD specialist to facilitate a more direct process. Agreements were made in writing about how the

process would work, including Marilyn meeting with Dan and Pete to discuss the problem between them

and how it was affecting the organization. But Marilyn did not follow through on the agreement. She never

met with Pete and Dan at the same time and, as a result, the messages she sent to each were inconsistent.

In fact, during their separate conversations, it appeared that Marilyn began supporting Pete and began

criticizing Dan. Dan began to withdraw, productivity in both groups suffered, and he became more hostile,

stubborn, and bitter.

In the end, Dan felt sabotaged not only by Pete but by Marilyn as well. He took a leave of absence based

on Marilyn's advice. His project was left without a leader and he ended up leaving the organization. Pete

stayed on, but staff at all levels of the organization were upset that his behavior had not been questioned.

Similarly, the organization lost a lot of respect for Marilyn's ability to address conflict. Losses in

productivity and morale among staff in many areas in the organization resulted from the conflict between

two employees.

Table of Contents: