A PRE-NEGOTIATION STRATEGY (Research report)

In order to facilitate the initiation of consensus-building processes, we are proposing a pre-negotiation strategy. The first step consists in minimizing the influence exerted by poor relations between the parties. The second step is to maximize the influence of expected benefits. The second stage consists in bridging the relationships and benefits.

Mitigating Poor Relations
Poor relations between the parties are often at the root of problematic consensus-building initiation. Consequently, the first proposed intervention focuses on the need to restore poor relations between affected parties. Poor relations are an important predisposing and hindering factor because strained relationships usually taint the entire initiation process by creating the impression that it will be impossible to work with the other party. In addition to decreasing the motivation to participate, this perceived competition can be a major roadblock, keeping parties from fully appreciating the appeal of collaboration. It is difficult to set strict standards for what is an appropriate positive relationship. However, as long as parties feel that they can work together, relationships can be viewed as acceptable. When parties’ relationships are strongly antagonistic, two tactics can be used to mitigate the impacts described above. These are: using conflict-analysis workshops to deescalate tension among parties, and gradually building a level of trust between the parties.

Highlighting the Incentives
The driving force behind the straightforward consensus-building initiation is the expectation of benefits from participation. Consequently, the second intervention proposed is to ensure that all parties are offered potential incentives for participating in the consensus-building effort. It makes intuitive sense that parties will accept an invitation to join a consensus-building effort only if they are aware of its potential benefits. Conversely, parties are likely to refuse to participate where they do not foresee positive outcomes. When incentives are insufficient, two tactics can be used to integrate more incentives for participating: providing an inventory of individual benefits from involvement, and assessing the cost of not getting involved.

Bridging relationships and benefits
The bridge that links poor relations and the benefits expected from participation is the appeal of collaboration. Consequently, the last intervention proposed for creating a successful initiation process is to work on the appeal of collaboration. When stakeholders realize that the concrete gain, or cost avoided, through cooperation is potentially greater than what can be achieved without collaboration, consensus building seems like a desirable course of action. It is difficult to set firm criteria, but every party should eventually view collaboration as potentially fruitful, despite poor relations with other parties. Two strategies that can be useful are: assessing the need to collaborate, and explaining the motivation for collaboration.

In summary, the overall principle of the proposed pre-negotiation strategy is rather straightforward: parties must feel that, despite mistrust, collaborating with the other is likely to bring benefits.

Reference: Jean Poitras, Robert E. Bowen, Sean Byrne (2003) Bringing Horses to Water? Overcoming Bad Relationships in the Pre-Negotiating Stage of Consensus Building. Negotiation Journal 19 (3) , 251–263.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PATTERNS AND ORGANIZATIONAL DISPUTE STATES (Research Report)

One of the basic tenets of conflict management is that the way an organization settles its conflicts has a direct impact on the workplace climate, and in particular on the conflict aspect of this climate. The purpose of this study is to explore this claim in three steps. First, using cluster analysis, the study identifies three patterns for resolving disputes within organizations: interest-based resolution, resolution based on regulation, and power-based resolution. Second, using cluster analysis, the study isolates three different states of organizational dispute: a state of harmony, a state of dissonance, and a state of conflict. Lastly, the study evaluates the significant impact that dispute resolution patterns have on organizational dispute states.

Analysis of research data yielded three main results. First, the study identified three styles of dispute resolution patterns: interest-based resolution, resolution based on regulation, and power-based resolution. Analysis then focused on three different organizational dispute states: a harmony state, a dissonance state, and a state of conflict. Finally, the impact of resolution patterns on dispute states was shown to be significant and the degree of impact is therefore sufficiently large to have practical value.

A number of theoretical and practical implications stem from these results. First, the results suggest that Ury, Brett and Goldberg’s (1988) theoretical typology of conflict management approaches may benefit from revision in terms of the rights-based approach. In effect, the results of the empirical approach suggest that no resolution is based solely on rights, but such a resolution pattern consists more of a blend of power and rights. It would be more appropriate to talk of an approach based on power controlled by rules. Second, the cluster analysis of climates of conflict suggests an escalating model of conflict. A harmony state would first be disrupted by the emergence of conflicts of ideas or interests. If these are not reconciled, the climate then degenerates into a state of conflict in which negative emotions and competitive behaviour begin to emerge. Last, cross tabulation of dispute resolution patterns illustrates that, to create and maintain a harmony state at work, in addition to settling problems, it can be strategic to modify an organization’s dispute resolution culture.

Reference: Poitras, J. and A. LeTareau. 2008. Dispute resolution Patterns and Organizational Dispute States. International Journalof Conflict Management, 19 (1), p. 72-87.