[Prepared by HOPE Learning Systems Ltd. Ross Bayne, Suite 214, 11 Fairway Drive, Edmonton, Alberta, T6J 2W4 (403) 438-3899]

Anyone can become angry - - is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way - - this is not easy.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

It is with the heart that one sees rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.

Antonne De Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince

Do we have the power to choose our responses?

Almost all creative endeavors are somewhat unpredictable. They often seem ambiguous, hit-or-miss, trial and error. And unless people have a high tolerance for ambiguity and get there security from integrity to principles and inner values, they find it unnerving and unpleasant to be involved in highly creative enterprises. Their need for structure, certainty, and predictability is too high.

Steven Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

Solving Problems (Gap analysis)

1. Accurately describe the problem itself.
2. Gather information - both qualitative and quantitative data.
3. Determine the most important factors contributing to the problem
4. Describe what would be happening if things were going well.
5. Creatively identify possible solutions.
6. Pick the best possible solution, and create action steps to solve the problem.

Conflict Resolution Process

Step One: Specify the concern. Ask questions. What is/are the issue/s?

Step Two: Clarify Differences; neutralize the emotion; appeal to the "thinking brain."

Step Three: Agree on Commonalities.

Step Four: Resolve Conflict. Options are: apologize; dismiss; negotiate; acknowledge.

Step Five: Normalize. Try to leave the situation on a positive note.

Possible Questions to ask:

1. What is the issue or problem? (How the issue or problem is stated often determines the outcome.)
2. Where do we not agree? (Areas of disagreement must be identified so they can be dealt with as separate issues or problems to be resolved.)
3. Where (as we discuss the issue) can we agree? (Areas of agreement are identified as a way of establishing a good foundation for the eventual solution.)
4. Can we develop possible options that take advantage of the areas where we agree, and bring us closer in the areas where we disagree? (Options are developed to take advantage of the areas of agreement.)
5. What is the best possible action/s to take? What action/s will we take as next steps that will resolve the conflict? (Actions represent what each party will do as a result of the discussion: What by Whom by When.)

Adapted from Weaver, Richard and Farrell, John. Managers are Facilitators: A Practical Guide to Getting Work Done in a Changing Workplace San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1997.

The Competitive Style

Characteristics:

You strive primarily to satisfy your concern at the expense of others, by forcing people to do it your way, arguing, and pulling rank. You use your power to win your objective/s. This approach does not work well in personal relations, as it alienates people.

This is a good style to use when:

• the issue is very important to you and you have a big stake in getting your way;
• you have authority to make the decision, and it seems clear that this is the one best way;
• you feel you have no other options and nothing to lose;
• you are in an emergency situation where immediate decisive action is necessary;
• you can't get a group to agree, feel you are at an impasse, and someone must make the group move ahead;
• you have to make an unpopular decision, but action is required now, and you have the power to make that choice.

The Avoidant Style

Characteristics:

You decide that the issue is not worth standing up for your position. You might try changing the subject, walking out of the room, or doing something to put the conflict aside or delay it. You need to make sure you do come back to the issues eventually; otherwise this approach can look like procrastination or irresponsibility.

This is a good style to use when:

• tensions are too high and you feel a need to cool down;
• the issue isn't very important to you or you feel it's objectively a trivial issue that's not worth dealing with;
• you know you can't or probably won't win the conflict;
• you want to buy more time, perhaps because you need to get more information or get some assistance from others;
• you have little power to resolve the situation or to get it resolved in a desirable way;
• you feel that others have a better chance of resolving the situation;
• there is danger in trying to deal with the situation at the moment since bringing the conflict out into the open might make the situation worse.

The Accommodative Style

Characteristics:

You choose to work cooperatively with the other person without trying to assert your own concerns. It is most appropriate to do this when you don't have a lot invested in the situation or a lot at stake in the outcome.

This is a good style to use when:

• you don't really care that much what happens;
• you want to keep peace and maintain harmony with others;
• you feel it is more important to maintain a relationship with someone than to get the matter decided you way;
• you recognize that the outcome is much more important to the other person than to you;
• you recognize that you are wrong, and the other person is right;
• you have little power or little chance of winning;
• you think the other persons might learn from the situation if you go along with what they want, even though you don't agree with what they are doing or think they are making a mistake.

The Collaborative Style

Characteristics:

You get actively involved in working out a conflict by asserting what you want, while still trying to cooperate with the other person. You seek first to understand, and then to be understood by the other person - not just on surface differences, but on underlying interests or needs. This style can take a little longer, but a win-win solution can often be developed.

This is a good style to use when:

• the issues are very important to both or all parties, and no one is willing to let go entirely;
• you have a close, continuing, or interdependent relationship with the other party;
• you have the time to deal with the problem;
• both you and the other party are aware of the problem and are clear about what you want;
• both you and the other party are willing to put some thought and work into finding a solution;
• you both have the skills to articulate your concerns and to listen to what others have to say;
• you and others in the conflict have a similar amount of power, or are willing to put aside any power differences in order to work together as equals in coming up with a solution.

The Compromising Style

Characteristics:

You give up a little bit of what you want to get the rest of what you want, and the other parties in the conflict do the same. You do this by making exchanges and concessions, and beginning to come up with a compromise solution each can agree to. You are not searching for underlying needs and interests as in collaboration. You are dealing only with what people say they want.

This is a good style to use when:

you have the same amount of power as someone else and you are both committed to mutually exclusive goals;

you want to achieve a resolution quickly, because of time pressures or because it is more economical and efficient that way;

you can settle for a temporary resolution;

you will benefit from a short-term gain;

you haven't been able to work out a solution through either collaboration or a more competitive/forceful approach, and compromise alone offers some solution;

the goals are not extremely important to you, and you are willing to modify your objectives;

a compromise will make a relationship or agreement work, and you'd rather have that than nothing at all.

Adapted from Scott, GG (1990) Resolving Conflict: With Others and Within Yourself. New Harbinger Publications. Oakland, CA. This is based on the model developed by Kenneth W Thomas and Ralph H Kilmann.