Chapter 6
Managing Conflict  TOP

Introduction

Many of us have been socialized to feel that conflict is bad and to be avoided at all costs. In fact, respectful conflict can benefit planning in the course of bringing together different perspectives. Too much agreement may signify a group’s failure to find creative solutions or recognize emerging challenges. It may mean that people are not voicing their concerns. When agreements come too easily, it may mean that final decisions do not really have the commitment of the entire group.

Conflict is a necessary state in participatory planning. Group members must hear one another’s differences before they can perform as a team. However, conflict that is not managed can result in such consequences as high membership turnover and inadequate service planning that reduces the quality of care provided. Conflict that is well managed can encourage both cooperation and constructive conflict within an environment that respects open dialogue—and the conflicts that will inevitably arise. Helpful conflict management tools include policies and procedures, effective leadership, diversity of membership, and mutually agreed-upon ground rules for interaction.

If conflict management activities do not work, outside mediation can be used or, if that fails, binding arbitration. However, mediation and arbitration can be very costly. Every member must take responsibility for helping manage conflict and, as such, should not let high levels of conflict harm the group’s ability to develop a plan for HIV/AIDS care.

Areas of Conflict in Consortia and Planning Bodies  TOP

Conflict may arise most often over the following matters:

• Where, when, and how meetings are conducted
• Actual or perceived differences in values, interests, and personal styles (e.g., discrepancies in work output, commitment to service delivery, definitions of services, styles of expressing anger, frustration, discomfort and disagreement; differences in cultural backgrounds, sexual orientation, race, and class give rise to conflict and misunderstanding)
• Selection of service priorities
• Interpretation of needs assessment results
• Allocation of funds and choices of subcontractors
• Staffing decisions
• Roles, responsibilities, and relationships with lead agency and the State
• Client grievances, and
• Monitoring and evaluating provider organizations.

Actions That Promote Unproductive Conflict

The following actions may lead to unproductive conflict:

• Wanting to be right at all costs
• Believing there is only one way (your way)
• Poor listening skills
• Placing blame versus focusing on solving the problem
• Attacking people or agencies viewed as potential competitors as opposed to attacking problems
• Dredging up historical issues and failing to focus on the current moment and future plans
• Stereotyping people
• Presuming to know what others think before they have a chance to speak
• Not being open and honest
• Letting a few people dominate a meeting
• Not sharing the same information with everyone
• Letting ego, power, status, etc. get in the way
• Not acknowledging that every member needs something from the process
• Refusing to take personal responsibility for one’s own conflict-handling style
• Lacking understanding and/or appreciation of different communication styles
• Engaging in power plays, and
• Indulging in rivalries.

Determining Your Conflict Style  TOP

People deal with conflict in a variety of ways. Understanding how individuals deal with conflict will help the group manage conflict because—ultimately—the only person whose behavior you can change is your own. Described below are three ways that conflict is typically handled: avoidance, confrontation, and collaboration. Note these styles are not mutually exclusive. Most people possess the capacity for exhibiting more than one style.

Style #1: Avoidance

Some people will do anything to avoid conflict. They will agree simply for the sake of harmony and even hold back their own good ideas. Sometimes avoidance is caused by a fear of emotional confrontation that stems from beliefs about human behavior such as “It’s not nice to fight” and “If you don’t have something good to say, don’t say anything at all.” Acting on these beliefs, people who avoid conflict are less productive than they can be.

Successful groups create an atmosphere where all feel comfortable expressing their ideas and opinions without fear of ridicule or criticism. One way to draw out members who avoid conflict is to take the time to make sure everyone speaks before an important decision is made. The results will be better solutions to problems, higher quality decisions, and everyone’s commitment to support the decision.

Style #2: Combative

This style is the exact opposite of the first. Combative people give their opinions, ideas, suggestions, and comments very quickly, often without thinking about the consequences. They are passionate and direct with their words so you always know where they stand, but they are so abrasive that people get offended by what they say and, especially, how they say it. Being combative may come across as being mean and uncaring when, in fact, the person may have very good intentions. The consequence of this style is that other members become fearful of saying anything that might be ridiculed or criticized. As other members say less, a combative person begins to dominate. After a while, members begin to resist the combative person’s ideas, even the good ones.

Successful groups help combative people become more aware of their style and its consequences. Making sure the group hears everyone before making a decision is helpful. So is setting time limits so each speaker has only a certain amount of speaking time and one person doesn’t dominate. Combative people need help in seeing that their style causes win-lose games, which is the opposite of what they want, and that actually they can achieve more by choosing their words more carefully, weighing consequences before they speak, and listening more than they talk.

Style #3: Collaborative

A story frequently told in negotiation seminars is of two girls fighting over the same orange. Their mother intervenes and cuts the orange in half. The first girl throws away the orange peel and eats the fruit. The second girl throws away the fruit and uses the peel to bake a cake. If the two girls had collaborated, they would have seen that underneath their conflict were needs that were not in conflict. Collaborative people don’t assume that there has to be both a winner and a loser. Instead, they communicate with the people they are in conflict with and, eventually, come to a mutually agreed-upon solution with which both parties can live and even thrive.

A collaborative member does not avoid conflict, but also does not create it unnecessarily. Members must learn to be collaborative and work through conflict to arrive at win-win solutions because win-lose solutions leave hurt feelings that hinder the members’ ability to work together and prevent the arrival at outcomes that are best for all parties.

Strategies to Manage Conflict  TOP

Creating an atmosphere conducive to open and honest discussion and respect for diverse viewpoints is the best way to prevent conflicts from degenerating into destructive rivalries and power plays. Helpful activities include the following:

• Establish ground rules
• Ask each member to talk about his or her needs
• Do not avoid conflict
• Facilitate open communication
• Create written policies and procedures for conflict management
• Use mediation
• Use arbitration, and
• Check with your grantee.

Each of these activities is discussed below.

Establish Ground Rules

Ground rules, agreed upon by all participants and reviewed at the beginning of every meeting, promote effective communication during meetings. Useful ground rules may include the following:

• One person speaks at a time; others listen and do not interrupt.
• Each person speaks for himself or herself, using “I;” don’t claim to speak for others.
• Be polite. It’s acceptable to disagree, but do so respectfully. Insults and accusations are unacceptable.
• Observe confidentiality within established policies.
• Share group time fairly. Allow everyone a chance to speak and listen.
• Be open to listening to and learning from others’ viewpoints.
• When the group is locked in conflict, agree to stop the agenda and brainstorm creative options.
• Refer to written policy and procedures for handling conflict that cannot be resolved in a regular meeting.
• Allow adequate agenda time for particularly sensitive issues. Make sure that each person has time to discuss all aspects of the issue without unrealistic time constraints being imposed.
• Clarify who will monitor group interactions for compliance with the ground rules and agree to what happens to repeat offenders.

Ask Each Member to Talk About His or Her Needs

Every member is there for a reason. Whether they are consumers who want to ensure quality services for themselves and their friends, or service providers who want to secure funding, all members need something from their participation in the process. This is not wrong or bad. One of the great myths of the planning process is that everyone must be there for altruistic reasons that have nothing to do with personal needs, desires, and wants. Encouraging everyone to be up-front with their needs will not only help dispel this myth (e.g., a service provider should never need to apologize for wanting to secure funds to provide services) but will help minimize the number of hidden agendas that lead to unproductive conflict. This could be done annually as part of the formal disclosure process to comply with conflict of interest policies and procedures (see the chapter on conflict of interest in this manual). Simply ask members: “What do you need from this group?” or “What do you want to get out of your membership?”

Do Not Avoid Conflict

Acknowledge that differing points of view exist and that conflict is a natural part of the discussion process. Do not attempt to avoid conflict or sweep it under the carpet when it surfaces, but be careful to define the conflict. The more specifically the problem is defined, the more suitable the solution is likely to be. The group should also distinguish between the issues and the individuals involved in the conflict. When conflict flares up, attempt to address and resolve it. If you must move ahead to other matters, make sure to return to the issue at a later date.

While acknowledging and dealing with conflict is important, it is also imperative to be careful that the conflict is appropriate. Some issues belong in other forums but are brought to the planning group because that process is often seen as more open. The mission should be clearly understood by all participants and, when issues outside their mission are brought forward, members need to refer the issue to a more appropriate forum. For example, if the consortium does not have responsibility for HIV/AIDS education and prevention planning under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Prevention Community Planning Group initiative, then discussion regarding conflict with a provider’s education/prevention program is inappropriate, even if the provider also handles a funded CARE Act program.

Facilitate Open Communication

Facilitate the expression of opposing views by providing ample opportunity for their advocates to speak and to listen to each other. A process that is always hurried and driven by a need to move quickly almost always promotes unproductive conflict. Slow the process down when the decisions on the table are critical (e.g., during the annual priority setting process). As a first step toward proposing alternative solutions and attempting to reach a negotiated agreement, encourage each party to restate the other’s arguments to clarify any misinterpretations or misunderstanding. Understand that differences in experience, culture, class, gender, and personality influence how conflict is expressed. An effective chair or facilitator can facilitate the process of negotiation and help reach a solution that allows all parties to feel they have gained from the process, rather than that some people won and some people lost.

Create Written Policies and Procedures for Conflict Management

A written policy describing the mechanism for addressing and resolving internal disagreements may help in situations that cannot be resolved in ordinary group meetings. These policies should define what constitutes a conflict, how it should be resolved, what qualifies it as irresolvable, and what the next steps will be.

A sample policy could read: “A conflict could be defined as occurring when there is a designated percentage split between the voting members. If the conflict is unresolved after two meetings, an outside mediator will be requested. If mediation does not resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of both factions, or parties, then binding arbitration will be utilized.”

Use Mediation

A mediator is an unbiased third party experienced in conflict resolution techniques. A mediator should be used to manage conflict situations that have reached an impasse and threaten to disrupt or delay decision making or disbursement of funds. The mediator does not decide who is right and wrong and does not tell the parties what to do. Instead, the mediator requires both parties to adhere to a step-by-step process that often facilitates a consensus agreeable to both parties. (For more on mediation, see the grievance procedures chapter in this manual.)

Use Arbitration

In arbitration, the conflicting parties agree to a formal hearing before a neutral arbitrator or panel. All parties make a binding agreement to honor the decision of the arbitrator. Arbitration involves an initial agreement to arbitrate, preparation of the case, a pre-hearing conference to clarify procedures, a hearing, review of evidence, and the decision. (For more on arbitration, see the grievance procedures chapter in this Manual.)

Check with Your Grantee

Disputes that advance to requiring mediation and/or arbitration, especially if they involve funds, could be taken out of the group’s hands. A consortium may not have the authority to make final decisions about when and how to take steps beyond the consortium’s dispute resolution process. This level of conflict management should be addressed with the grantee and could depend upon State law or contract provisions with the consortium or lead agency. Many grantees have language regarding conflict resolution in their guidance.