Understanding Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in the Workplace: a Pilot Study

Home , Conflict management

Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks

CAHSS Faculty Articles Faculty Scholarship

Summer 7-19-2013

Understanding Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in the Workplace: A Pilot Study

Neil H. Katz Nova Southeastern University, [email protected]

Linda T. Flynn Nova Southeastern University

Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/shss_facarticles

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Communication Commons

NSUWorks Citation Katz, N. H., & Flynn, L. T. (2013). Understanding Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in the Workplace: A Pilot Study. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30 (4), 393-410. https://doi.org/10.1002/ crq.21070

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CAHSS Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES

ticlesUnderstanding Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies in the Workplace: A Pilot Study

Neil H. Katz Linda T. Flynn

In today’s business environment, workplace confl ict is a signifi cant issue. Research in the confl ict management discipline says that confl ict in the workplace is on the rise and will continue to go up; however, many leaders and managers are not fully aware of structures and processes available to manage it. Th is article presents the results of a pilot study conducted in Broward County, Florida, of workplace leaders’ and managers’ awareness, perception, and use of confl ict management systems and strategies. Th e fi ndings refl ect the lack of a clear defi nition of the issue, the absence of integrated confl ict management systems within most organizations, and dissatisfaction with antiquated grievance systems. Th ere is substantial opportunity for additional research.

onviolent, collaborative confl ict resolution methods such as facilita- Ntion, negotiation, mediation, and consensual decision making are part of a long history in many regions of the globe, including sub-Sahara Africa, India, Iceland, and the Roman Empire. However, these proven confl ict resolution methods were not well known in the United States until the 1980s, when developments in various areas converged to expose these methods to a wider audience. Among the most important of these initia- tives were widely popular books such as Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agree- ment without Giving In (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1981) and Th e Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Confl icts (Moore 2003); national

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, Summer 2013 393 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Confl ict Resolution Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21070 394 KATZ, FLYNN organizations providing conferences and networking services, including the National Conference on Peacemaking and Confl ict Resolution; and institutes such as the Th eory and Practice Research and Educational Cen- ters funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, including university centers such as the Harvard Negotiation Project, the Program for the Analysis and Resolution of Confl icts at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Aff airs, and the Dispute Resolution Pro- gram at the Kellogg Business School of Northwestern University. Th roughout the 1990s, interest in collaborative confl ict resolution techniques continued to accelerate in academia, training organizations, and numerous sectors of society such as business, education, family, and religious institutions. Substantial support of these methods existed among people and institutions of great infl uence, including the US Congress, which passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act in 1990 authoriz- ing and encouraging federal agencies to use alternative dispute reso lution (ADR), and the presidency: In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Execu- tive Order 12891 mandating that all US federal agencies form labor- management partnership councils and undergo training in interest-based negotiation, as well as other confl ict resolution and collaborative decision- making methods. By the late 1990s, hundreds of colleges and universities and training organizations off ered theory and practice in confl ict resolution techniques: facilitation, negotiation, advanced communication skills, confl ict and communication styles, and mediation and arbitration. Prominent private sector fi rms such as General Electric, Prudential, Johnson and Johnson, and Alcoa were developing in-house mediators, arbitrators, ombudspersons, and other confl ict resolution specialists. Large federal agencies such as the US Postal Service, the Department of the Interior, and the Departments of the Navy and Air Force trained many of their own employees to become ADR specialists. Th ese trained staff handled cases of workplace confl ict eff ectively and effi ciently in terms of cost, settlement satisfaction, durability of the agreement, and overall satisfaction with the process (Lipsky and Seeber 2006). By the turn of the century, optimism that these dispute resolution practices were becoming the norm in communities, groups, families, and workplaces took hold among many scholars and practitioners. William Ury’s Th e Th ird Side (2000) promotes the belief and promise that negotiation will take over as the norm in settling international disputes, with military interventions becoming more and more obsolete. Jack Gordon’s

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 395

Th e Pfeiff er Book of Successful Confl ict Management Tools (2003) gives readers access to dozens of ideas, strategies, inventories, questionnaires, surveys, and experiential learning activities to manage confl ict more eff ectively at the individual, team, and organizational levels. In a major study of private sector workplace confl ict systems by scholars of the prestigious Institute of Confl ict Resolution at Cornell Universi- ty’s School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Lipsky, Seeber, and Fincher (2003) noted the broadening acceptance and institutionalization of processes such as mediation, arbitration, fact fi nding, and ombudspersons and wrote, “Research strongly suggests that ADR is fi rmly institutionalized in a majority of United States corporations, at least for employment and com- mercial disputes” (xvii). Th e Cornell study authors optimistically con- cluded their book by referring to Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point (2002) phenomenon to characterize the incredible growth and bright future for confl ict management practices in the workplace. Th e authors predicted that “growth will get to social and behavioral epidemic proportions where ‘everyone will be doing it’ and confl ict management processes and systems will become as essential to organizational life as other features of Human Resources such as benefi ts, compensation and hiring” (139–40). Th is article summarizes the results of a pilot study conducted in Bro- ward County, Florida, designed to gauge the awareness, perception, and use of confl ict management methods and systems. Th e study fi ndings, of a mixed-method design, highlight the results of in-depth interviews with leaders from a cross-section of public, private, and nonprofi t organizations and employee surveys from those organizations. Th e study gathered leader and employee views of workplace confl ict, perceived value of the systems, and awareness of and satisfaction with existing confl ict resolution practices, including how the system “consciously or unconsciously exposes and resolves dissatisfaction” (Constantino and Merchant 1996, 22). Th e results of this study, funded under a local grant requiring a community engagement focus in Broward County, cannot easily be generalized to a larger population. Th e pilot study fi ndings do, however, reveal some important challenges for consideration by scholars and practitioners, including a distinct lack of awareness of the value of eff ective confl ict management systems and strategies, a potential need for the confl ict management fi eld to improve public education and communications with business communities, and identifi cation of areas for future research and exploration.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 396 KATZ, FLYNN

Work and Confl ict: Yesterday and Today

To provide a context for the study, we provide a brief review of the litera- ture, which lends evidence to the belief that workplace confl ict is a signifi - cant variable in workplace productivity, eff ectiveness, and overall success. Scholarship on workplace confl ict has experienced several transforma- tions. While early twentieth-century classical organizational theorists such as Max Weber and Henri Fayol viewed organizational confl ict as unpleas- ant, hostile, and senseless (Alghamdi 2011), most scholars today recognize the inevitability of workplace confl ict, defi ned as “members engaging in activities that are incompatible with those of colleagues within their net- work, members of other collectivities, or unaffi liated individuals who utilize the services or products of the organization” (Roloff 1987, 19). Moreover, contemporary theorists, including Taylor (1992), and Rahim (2001), Lam (2005), Wilmot and Hocker (2007), and Ritzer (2008), not only admit the inevitability of confl ict as a natural occurrence in organizational life but also argue that confl ict can serve a positive function in the workplace environment. Th e human relations and interactionist perspective places the empha- sis on how confl icts are managed as the critical element in determining if they have a negative or positive eff ect on the workplace environment. Con- fl ict management “involves designing eff ective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of confl ict and enhancing the constructive functions of confl ict in order to enhance the learning and eff ectiveness of an organization” (Rahim 2001, 76) and developing macrolevel strategies to lower dysfunctional confl ict and improve functional confl ict (Ozkalp, Sungur, and Ozdemir 2009). Functional confl ict fl ows from the skillful management of substantive disagreements between organizational members, resulting in stronger group performance through better understanding of diff erent per- spectives and solutions. Dysfunctional or aff ective confl ict “emerges as a strain or breakdown in interpersonal relationships leading to hurt feelings and emotions of anger and betrayal, and takes its toll on group and organizational loyalty, performance, satisfaction and commitment” (Jehn 1995; Rahim 2001, 2002; Wang , Jing, and Klossek 2007; Alghamdi 2011). Today’s organizations deal with high levels of workplace confl ict resulting from diff erences in human relations, confusing organizational structures, competition among members and units for scarce resources, budget cuts, employee layoff s, job expansion, and global competition. Groups and organizations experience increased interdependence among stakeholders, and more demanding and complex work assignments. Th ese challenges

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 397

accelerate the need to work more often in teams and task forces and the neces- sity of success in networking, partnerships, and critical alliances. Demanding customers and clients, employee diff erences, and employee desire for more participation in decision making also heighten tensions in the workplace. Several studies document that senior and middle-level managers and supervisors spend 21 to 42 percent of their time dealing with confl ict as a primary party or as a third party (Th omas and Schmidt 1976; Watson and Hoff man 1996; Dana 2001). Other studies conclude that over half of supervisors’ and managers’ workdays are spent engaging in back-and-forth communication trying to reach agreement and collaboration among horizontal and vertical stakeholders and constituents (O’Leary and Van Slyke 2010).

Confl ict and the Workplace

Ample evidence exists that workplace confl ict that is not handled well has heavy direct and indirect costs for employers, employees, and organizational eff ectiveness and effi ciency. Research notes that more performance problems result from strained relationships than from defi cits in skills or motivation. Dana’s (2001) exit interview data document that 50 percent or more of voluntary resignations relate directly to unresolved confl ict and show that “confl ict is a decisive factor in at least 90% of involuntary ter- minations excluding cases of staff reduction due to downsizing, mergers and restructuring” (22). Additional studies more specifi cally document the psychological eff ects of unmanaged confl ict due to hostile work envi- ronments (Bloom 2006). As organizations become conscious of costs and bottom-line calculations, attention must be directed to confl ict management systems and strategies. Dana (2001) proclaims, “Th e means by which organizations manage confl ict might very well be one of the most signifi cant factors they currently face in regards to costs, effi ciency, eff ectiveness and employee retention” (see http://www.mediationworks.com). Organizational confl ict is experienced at all organizational levels and results from many procedural and personnel issues (Hovtepo, Assokere, Abdul-Azeez, and Ajemunighbohun 2010). Data on the causes of confl ict range from the obvious—lack of resources, poor communication, competition, power abuses, and salary/rewards comparisons and dissatisfaction— to less obvious causes such as ambiguous reporting lines and unclear expectations, extreme behavior regulation, and subtle cultural diff erences (Arops and Beye 1997; Hovtepo et al. 2010). In summary, scholars note three key elements infl uencing confl ict manifestations:

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 398 KATZ, FLYNN

• Power—the capability and the means to accomplish things • Organization demands—diff ering expectations of work duties, quality, and speed • Worth—self-esteem and other emotional needs

Each of these is highly relational and interdependent, aff ecting the kinds and intensity of confl ict in work settings (Arops and Beye 1997).

The Role of Culture and Leadership

Although a comprehensive exploration of the relationship of leadership style, organizational culture, and confl ict management systems and strategies is beyond the scope of this article and the pilot study, a brief acknowl- edgment of their importance in workplace confl ict procedures and practices is necessary. Organizational culture is key to infl uencing confl ict management systems and strategies. Several studies make a compelling case that organizational culture is one of the most important variables in organizational success. Organizational culture is defi ned as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions—invented, discovered or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its work of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein 2010, 18). Since culture is a “shared set of values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, behavior and social structures that defi ne reality and guide everyday interactions” (Ford 2001, 2), its impact on the organization and its members is profound. More specifi cally, the overall culture aff ects fundamental parts of the organization, including “how the organization is structured, role expectations, how to act on the job, how to solve problems, who makes decisions under varying circum- stances, job descriptions, how to think about and behave towards co-workers, and supervisory and industry norms and practices encompassing such beliefs and practices on issues of diversity, openness to feedback, and on- going learning” (Bates et al. 1995, 1568). Indeed, the subculture of confl ict is a critical dimension of the overall organizational culture. Closely related to the role of organizational culture in infl uencing confl ict dynamics are the critical variables of leadership style, behavior, and perception. In particular, Argyris and Schön (1974) noted the important

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 399 distinction between espoused theory and theory in use. Th eir research explores the gap between leaders’ espoused theory, which is the worldview and values people give allegiance to and proclaim to others that they believe gov- erns their behavior, and theory in use, the worldview and values implied and witnessed by their behavior that actually predict and govern their actions. Th e wider the gap is, the more the likelihood is of potential confl ict issues between leaders and their employees.

The Broward County Pilot Study

Th e impacts of workplace confl ict have been widely studied (Ury 1993; Ury 2000; Cloke and Goldsmith 2005). Research shows that unresolved confl ict represents one of the most signifi cant costs in many businesses, yet it remains largely unrecognized (Dana 2001). Th is study seeks to understand the use of confl ict management in the workplace by uncovering workplace managers’ and leaders’ perceptions and attitudes of the fi eld and its off erings. Our research objectives were to gauge the current state of confl ict and confl ict management systems within a designated business community and evaluate the awareness and perception of confl ict management strategies. In addition, the study lends some evidence to the importance of the close relationship of organizational culture, leadership, and confl ict in an organization, an area that warrants additional research as a full analysis is beyond the scope of this pilot study. Our main preliminary assumption is that the awareness and popularity of confl ict management systems is low. Secondarily, there is little or no awareness of what an eff ective confl ict management system model, including relevant tools, training, and resources in the community, consists of.

Methodology Th e research team used a qualitative and quantitative mixed design for data gathering. It identifi ed participating organizations in partnership with United Way of Broward County and the Greater Fort Lauderdale Broward Economic Development Alliance located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Organizations were contacted through an introduction from a community partner, a follow-up e-mail from the principal investigator, and subsequent telephone calls for scheduling interviews. All participants received full informed-consent forms adhering to Nova Southeastern University’s Insti- tutional Review Board standards. Th e sample included a cross section of

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 400 KATZ, FLYNN public, private, and nonprofi t organizations in Broward County, ranging in size ranged from twenty to over two thousand employees. Th e team conducted twenty-fi ve interviews with C-level executives and other high-level managers using a series of open-ended questions based on the following subject areas:

• Th e interviewee’s defi nition of organizational confl ict • Th e current state of issues and disputes within the organization and with the client or customer base • Th e use of techniques to manage and resolve disputes • Th e perceived and real eff ect of disputes on the productivity and effi - ciency of participants and subordinates • Any current or past training within areas of confl ict management • Satisfaction with current confl ict management systems • Th e overall eff ect on the organization—its turnover rates, sabotage, slowdowns, and direct costs • Awareness of resources and training for managing confl ict

Subsequent to the review and analysis of the qualitative interview data, ten of twenty-fi ve organizations consented to distribution of a survey to their general employee base. Th e survey design, based on Dana’s (2001) workplace confl ict survey, investigates satisfaction with confl ict management in the organization, the types of confl ict, and behavioral reaction to confl ict in the workplace. Th e 219 completed surveys represented a 60 percent response rate based on consenting organization employee counts.

Results Summary Within the geographically restricted sample, we made the following fi ndings:

• Th ere is little awareness of how much confl ict aff ects an organization’s performance and fi nances. • Th e types of confl icts are varied. • Leaders and employees hold diff ering defi nitions of confl ict and views on the eff ectiveness of any systems in place. • Th ere is little awareness of the tools and strategies available to mitigate confl ict in the workplace.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 401

Another fi nding points to the importance of leadership style and organizational culture in eff ectively managing confl ict. Th e types of confl icts within organizations are broad-based and diverse. With today’s economic climate, both nonprofi ts and private sector organizations face serious fi nancial challenges, and these eff ects of the economy result in increased workload, uncertain job security, and employees who are dealing with high stress situations, which sometimes translates to additional internal organizational confl ict. In ranking the types of confl ict in the workplace, the surveyed employees attributed disagreements in the following ranked order:

1. Employee-employee issues 2. Employee-manager/supervisor issues 3. Employee-client issues 4. Manager-client issues

Broward County is the most racially diverse county in South Florida: according to the 2010 Census, 37 percent of the population belongs to a minority group. Many organizations with diverse employee populations identify cultural and generational diff erences as a basis for confl ict. Since the demographics of Broward (and other areas of the country) are diverse, so is the workplace. For example, due to many economic and demographic variables, more and more workplaces have older and younger generations working together. Other types of confl icts are rooted in diff ering communication styles, lack of communication between management and employees, interpersonal disagreements, and a lack of eff ective confl ict management training and systems. In addition, the team observed distinct diff erences between the nonprofi t sector organizations and private sector organizations, with nonprofi t cultures being closely aligned with the mission and vision of their organization. Nonprofi t leaders discussed their experiences with turnover rates that are higher than those in private sector organizations. Leaders attribute this higher rate to higher emotional stress since the employees of nonprofi ts tend to deal with vulnerable populations. After a time, it takes a toll and can result in more interpersonal confl ict with others or a desire to self-preserve by leaving the organization. Many organizations in the study had a formal grievance process or an unwritten grievance process. Of the organizations with confl ict management systems, 21 percent of the employees and managers stated they were

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 402 KATZ, FLYNN not aware of any such systems in their organizations. Only 36 percent of employees surveyed were satisfi ed with the way their organization manages confl ict. Th e most common formal grievance systems were standard processes of completing a grievance form, submitting it to a supervisor, and waiting for a response or an escalation of the grievance to a higher level in the organization. Organizations have these systems in place, although they often choose to resolve the majority of confl icts informally to avoid a long formal process. According to many leaders and employees, the formal systems are likely to cause more confl ict than resolve it due to the lengthy, arduous, complicated path to resolution and the likely win-lose outcome. Large and small organizations alike tend to use outside services for employee confl ict, including human resource consultant services, employee assistance program services, and legal counsel services for serious situations. Th e larger organizations have legal staff on-site, while the smaller organizations may hire outside counsel as needed. Th e research team did not predefi ne confl ict for the interview participants but rather asked the participants about their defi nition of it. Not surprisingly, leaders held varying defi nitions of confl ict. Some defi ned it very narrowly as a dispute between employees or managers and employees. Some indicated a confl ict is a serious issue in the workplace, whereas a dispute is minor and not considered a confl ict. A few held a broader view and considered confl ict anything they intervened in and mitigated in a given day: employee-employee disputes, employee-supervisor disputes, supervisor-supervisor disputes, fi nancial controversies, board relationships, client-employee relations, and community relations. Employees also held diff erent views of what is considered confl ict in the workplace. As a result, the diff erences in how people defi ne confl ict can be a root cause of confl ict. For example, one leader shared a story about a generational confl ict in her workplace. An older worker lodged a complaint with a supervisor against a younger worker for “disrespecting” her in the workplace. Th e stated cause was that the younger worker did not consistently greet the older worker in the hallway when they crossed paths. Th e older worker perceived this as disrespectful, and it subsequently led to various confrontations with an escalation of the confl ict. Th e younger worker could not understand why the older worker was upset: her perception was that if she greeted everyone once during the day, there was no need to greet each other each time they passed in the hallway. Th e supervisor receiving this complaint refused to take it seriously because she did not view it as a real

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 403 confl ict. Bur eventually the relationship between the two workers became so volatile that it aff ected others in the workplace. Finally, the leader stepped in and held meetings with the employees and the supervisor. Th rough conversation and dialogue, the root of the problem surfaced: a diff erence in greet- ing protocols between generations and the perception of what constitutes a valid confl ict. During the interviews, leaders were asked how much time was spent on confl ict in the organization in a given day. Th e answer to this question seemed to be infl uenced by how each interviewee defi ned confl ict, although reported time spent on confl ict was high even with varying defi nitions. Lead- ers stated they spent approximately three to four hours a day (38 percent of a total work week) on confl ict. One leader described her job as full-time confl ict management, emphasizing that any high-level management job is primarily about managing confl ict within an organization. Th roughout the interview process, these conversations about confl ict in themselves resulted in increased awareness by the leaders of the time and money spent on confl ict in their organization. None of the organizations had ever attempted to estimate the cost of confl ict within their organization.

Connections: Leadership and Culture Th e research team, which entered this study with a focus on investigating systems, processes, and procedures that organizations used to manage confl ict, observed a distinct link between leadership style, organizational culture, and the type of systems used and the perceptions of eff ective confl ict management. Th e level of confl ict in an organization in relation to leadership and culture was not directly measured in this study, although it is a recommended area for future research. As expected, nonprofi t and private sector organizations operate in very diff erent cultures. Every nonprofi t organization attempts to have its leaders and employees closely aligned with the mission and vision of the organization. Almost unanimously, the mission and vision was the fi rst subject of conversation in these interviews. In addition, many organizations align their confl ict management policies with their mission and vision. For instance, one organization serves community populations dealing with mental and physical abuse. In the interview, the leader explained that it has a zero-tolerance policy for any physical or mental abuse among employees, no matter how insignifi cant. Th e leader told the story of an employee who threw a pen toward another employee during a meeting and was immediately terminated.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 404 KATZ, FLYNN

In another organization, the same behavior may not be interpreted as a serious off ense, but in this organization, the action represented everything it protects their client populations from in their daily lives. Many nonprofi t organizations have top leadership and management teams with extensive experience in the private sector in an attempt to bring more fi nancial and management expertise to the organization. Leaders voiced the challenges of clashes between business and nonprofi t cultures. Cited as new trends for the nonprofi t sector are the employment of research analysts for more evidence-based planning, a focus on revenues, and tighter structures for increased cost and service effi ciency. Th ese new processes sometimes are diffi cult to align with the client-centered service culture of nonprofi ts. Although several leaders employed team-building and communications training to assist with these diff erences in employee experience, many lacked the funds to invest in extensive training so dealt with situations as they arose. All noted diff erences between business culture and nonprofi t culture in situations that elevate confl ict in their organizations. Another observed dichotomy of cultures is the culture of avoidance and the culture of engagement. Th e majority of the organizations employ a culture of avoidance among leadership and employees to varying degrees. A number of leaders admitted they ignored certain interpersonal confl icts in their organizations with the expectation that the confl icts “will work themselves out” or “just go away.” One leader explained that the organization avoids confronting confl ict as a matter of policy. Th e employee survey supported the existence of this culture of avoidance: 51 percent reported that people in their organization avoid others with whom they are upset, 56 percent avoided dealing with a confl ict issue directly and instead com- plained to others about it, 43 percent said people do not go directly to the person with whom they are having a problem, and 43 percent got someone else to take care of the issue for them. One could argue that this type of behavior is inherent in workplace situations, although a few organizations stood out from the others in engaging their management teams and employees to resolve confl ict. As we know through espoused theory and theory in use (Argyris and Schön 1974), t here is often a disconnect between a leader’s view of the organization and employees’ views. Th e team observed a connection between fl exible leaders and favorable employee attitudes toward confl ict management. Leaders who promoted collaboration and a shared responsibility for handling confl ict through mediation, negotiation, or facilitation rather than the traditional grievance process had lower confl ict in their organizations.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 405

Innovative Practices A number of innovative and eff ective confl ict management practices emerged during the study. Overall, organizations employing these practices exhibited a high level of cultural competency, a learning approach to managing confl ict, and a flexible confl ict management system. Cultural competency is a core value, distinct from diversity training, and is inclusive of an awareness of many diff erent group orientations: race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, job category, and others. Competency identifi cation begins with an intense selection and orientation process, a refl ection of community within the organization, and creating a culture of respect and inclusion through training and fl exible management. For example, one organization’s leadership planning strategy was uniform across the organization, with a mandatory criterion for leaders to “manage others” in order to move up a grade level. After identifying an area of confl ict in one group of engineers, executive management realized this process did not work since engineers seek autonomy in their work and generally have no desire to manage other workers. A diff erent leadership plan was developed for this group based on individual contributions with no direct reports for anyone in the group. As a result, confl ict was greatly reduced within the employee group, and the organization activated a program to review each department and work group separately for leadership and training programs. Th is organization also operates global offi ces within many countries and cultures, with employees working together on various projects. Th e company invests in developing its own training and awareness programs for teaching cultural competency across borders. Learning-centered confl ict management practices identifi ed in the interviews include training in communication skills (specifi c to interpersonal relationship skills), confl ict resolution training, refl ective and active listening, and cross-functional job awareness. One organization monitors the internal and external environment through conversations, politics, and state laws and develops customized training programs based on any potential confl ict issues. One example involves a state law recently enacted in Florida allowing employees to carry fi rearms to work if they have a concealed- weapons permit. Th e organization developed a training program focusing on violence in the workplace, awareness of this new law, and preventative practices. Th e program is mandatory for all employees and includes follow- up touch points. Rather than waiting for a confl ict to surface in the organization, the organizational team anticipates potential issues and develops employee confl ict management training programs.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 406 KATZ, FLYNN

Th e study investigated the ideal picture of confl ict management within organizations: the research teams asked what leaders would like to see in their workplaces if there were no budgetary restraints. Due to the economy and restricted budgets, many organizations have been forced to cut training programs for management and employees. After our conversations, many leaders were better informed about confl ict management and training tools and expressed interest in learning more about practice models for confl ict management. Th ey also expressed a desire for professional skills and ethics training, innovative team-building workshops, confl ict identifi cation training, client confl ict training, communicat ions, and meeting facilitation training. One of the public organizations in the study that must negotiate pay and benefi ts with its employees had been in negotiations for over a year with no resolution in sight. It was revealed the organization does not use professional facilitators or coaches, allows each side to choose a nonneutral person to lead the negotiations, and allows employees to attend the negotiations with loud noisemakers they can use to protest the direction of the negotiations. Th e process is highly contentious and emotional; in fact, the leader’s home was defaced with spray paint. Although this organization realizes the benefi t of confl ict management services and training, the traditional adversarial process of contentious labor-management negotiations is so ingrained in its history there is much skepticism about change.

Conclusion

Th e fi ndings of this pilot study do not support the optimistic claims of scholars and practitioners that workplace confl ict management systems and approaches are widely used, at least in Broward County. Th ere is instead an overwhelming reliance on traditional practices of dealing or not dealing with confl ict through executive denial, managerial avoidance, formal grievances, and litigation or threats of it. If diff erences are to be facili- tated, negotiated, or mediated, organizations often call in outside experts instead of developing their own capacity. And there is a widespread lack of knowledge of the availability of experts in confl ict management, despite the fact that the country’s largest graduate program in confl ict analysis and resolution resides at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, the largest city in Broward County. Th e reasons behind this situation and the issues raised may extend to all corners of the organizational nation and the fi eld of confl ict resolution. Multiple interpretations and defi nitions of confl ict seem to have a negative

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 407 eff ect on process and resolution. Many organizations do not realize the benefi ts of confl ict management training and tools or lack the resources or knowledge to incorporate them into the processes of their organizations. Most important, most organizations do not realize the high cost of unmanaged confl ict and many avoid dealing with confl ict rather than facilitating a more inclusive problem solving process. Mayer (2004) believes that the fi eld of confl ict resolution is in crisis and needs to be redefi ned to be relevant and eff ective. Confl ict management has the potential to be a viable, credible set of theories, principles, and practices applied to business, the economy, the environment, and social relations. Business and global relations are swiftly evolving. Th e Internet is fueling globalization on a daily basis, and the triple bottom line (people, planet, profi t) is becoming increasingly important to society and organizational survival. Confl ict management has the potential to play a key role in the success of organizations, although perhaps not in its traditional form. Nevertheless, although confl ict management principles, skills, and procedures are seen as valuable for many situations, they struggle to be recognized as a viable solution for the myriad confl ict issues faced by today’s organizations. Although additional research is warranted, the fi ndings support the idea that the success of any confl ict management model in today’s society must be fl exible, adaptable to a breadth of situations and cultures and leadership styles, be practical and cost-eff ective, and be easily communicated to all employees in an organization. Our job as scholars and practitioners is to reframe the conversation about confl ict and its related costs and to communicate clearly the range of methods and the benefi ts of eff ective confl ict management practices and systems through a diff erent lens. In essence, we must build a powerful business case for how the confl ict fi eld and practice contributes to organizational eff ectiveness and effi ciency. Highlighting how a more facilitative and meditative approach in the workplace saves dollars, reduces turnover rates, boosts morale, and increases productivity is required to gain the attention of the business community. Th is develops a mind-set of viewing diff erences and confl icts as inevitable by “encouraging the surfacing of issues, ideas and concerns” (Katz and Cohen 2009, 87), and seeing the advantages of workplace diff erences managed successfully as a “source of innovation, enlarged perspective and vitality for the organization” (87). Powerful leadership models and benefi t-centered confl ict management case studies address the real needs and concerns of contemporary businesses and organizations and are

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 408 KATZ, FLYNN necessary to build that bridge of credibility and collaboration between confl ict management and the business discipline.

References Alghamdi, F. 20 11. “Identifying Preferred Confl ict Management Styles of Orga- nizational Members by Gender and Work Experience.” PhD dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, FL. Argyris, C., and D. Schön. 1974. Th eory in Practice: Increasing Professional Eff ectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Arops, V. N., and G. Beye. 1997. Management of Agricultural Research: A Training Manual, Module 4: Leadership, Motivation, Building and Confl ict Manage- ment. Rome, Italy: UN Food and Agricultural Organization. Bates, K. A., S. D. Amundson, R. G. Schroeder, and W. T. Morris. 1995. “Th e Crucial Interrelationship between Manufacturing Strategy and Organiza- tional Culture.” Management Science 41:1565–80. Bloom, S. L. 2006. Organizational Stress as a Barrier to Trauma-Sensitive Change and System Transformation. Philadelphia: National Technical Assistance Cen- ter for State Mental Health Planning. Cloke, K., and J. Goldsmith. 2005. Resolving Confl ict at Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Constantino, C. A., and C. S. Merchant. 1996. Designing Confl ict Management Systems: A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dana, D. 2001. Confl ict Resolution: Mediation Tools for Everyday Worklife. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fisher, R., W. L. Ury, and B. Patton. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiation Agreement without Giving In. New York: Penguin. Ford, J. 2001. “Cross Cultural Confl ict Resolution in eams.”T http://www.mediate .com/articles/ford5.cfm. Gladwell, M. 2002. Th e Tipping Point: How Little Th ings Can Make a Big Diff erence. Boston: Back Bay Books. Gordon, J. 2003. Th e Pfeiff er Book of Successful Confl ict Management Tools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hovtepo, O. M., A. Assokere, I. Abdul-Azeez, and S. A. Ajemunighbohun. 2010. “Empirical Study of Eff ects of Confl ict on Organizational Performance in Nigeria.” Business and Economics Journal, BEJ-15:1–9. Jehn, K. A. 1995. “A Multimethod Examination of the Benefi ts and Detriments of Intergroup Confl ict.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40:256–82. Katz, D. A., and J. Cohen. 2009. “What Corporations Need to Know about How to Install an Integrated Confl ict Management System.”Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 27 (6): 99–102.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq Confl ict Management Systems and Strategies 409

Lam, K. Y. 2005. “Workplace Confl ict Management Styles: A Comparison of Public Sector and Private Sector Employees in Hong Kong.” PhD dissertation, City University of Hong Kong. Lipsky, D. B., and R. L. Seeber. 2006. “Managing Organizational Confl ict.” In Th e Sage Handbook of Confl ict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research and Practice, edited by J. G. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lipsky, D. B., R. L. Seeber, and R. D. Fincher. 2003. Emerging Systems for Manag- ing Workplace Confl ict: Lessons from American Corporations for Managers and Dispute Resolution Professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mayer, B. S. 2004. Beyond Neutrality: Confronting the Crisis in Confl ict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moore, C. 2003. Th e Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Confl ict. San Francisco: John Wiley. O’Leary, R., and D. Van Slyke. 2010. “Introduction to the Symposium on the Future of Public Administration in 2020.” Public Administration Review (Sup- plement) 70:S5–S11. Ozkalp, E., Z. Sungur, and A. A. Ozdemir. 2009. “Confl ict Management Styles of Turkish Managers.” Journal of European Industrial Training 33:419–38. Rahim, M. A. 2001. Managing Confl ict in Organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum. Rahim, M. A. 2002. “Toward a Th eory of Managing.”International Journal of Confl ict Management 13:206–35. Ritzer, G. 2008. Sociological Th eory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Roloff , M. E. 1987. “Communication and Confl ict.” InHandbook of Communi- cation, edited by C. R. Berge and S. H. Chaff ee. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schein, E. H. 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, D. 1992. “Organizational Eff ectiveness and the Expert.” Industrial Man- agement and Data Systems 92:3–6. Th omas, K., and W. Schmidt. 1976. “A Survey of Management Interests with Respect to Confl ict.” Academy of Management Journal 19:315–18. Ury, W. 1993. Getting Past No: Negotiating in Diffi cult Situations. New York: Bantam Dell. Ury, W. 2000. Th e Th ird Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin. Wang. G., R. Jing, and A. Klossek. 2007. “Antecedents and Management of Con- fl ict.” International Journal of Confl ict Management 18:74–88. Watson, C., and R. Hoff man. 1996. “Managers as Negotiators.”Leadership Quar- terly 7:63–86. Wilmot, W., and J. Hocker. 2007. Interpersonal Confl ict.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq 410 KATZ, FLYNN

Neil H. Katz is professor and recent chair of the Department of Confl ict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale.

Linda T. Flynn is a doctoral candidate in organizational confl ict studies at Nova Southeastern University.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq