Conflict is inevitable in democratic organizations due to divergent views of individuals. Conflict takes place between individuals or groups and arises from disagreements regarding values, responsibilities, and ways of doing things, as well as from competition for scarce resources.
“Negotiation is the most widely used means for settling conflict in organizations and is the least costly in terms of time and money.” (Seyfarth, 252) Simple conflicts could be resolved through negotiations. In their efforts to resolve conflicts with and between teachers, and parents, school leaders negotiate almost every day. They have to be skillful negotiators so they can resolve conflicts relatively quickly to maintain a positive, productive, and vibrant environment.
In an insightful Harvard Business Review article, West Point professors Jeff Weiss and Aram Donigian and consultant Jonathan Hughes unpack the negotiation challenges of U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and draw lessons for the business world. They argue, “in the very context where one feels the most pressure to act fast and stake out an unwavering position, it is best to do neither. Control and power can be asserted most effectively by slowing down the pace of negotiation, actively leading counterparts into a constructive dialogue, and demonstrating genuine openness to others’ perspectives. That isn’t giving in. It is being strategic rather than reactive.”
Can we take it and apply it to education? Can principals try this strategy when dealing with stubborn teachers, angry parents, or difficult superiors? Weiss, Donigian, and Hughes suggest five strategies:
• Get the big picture. Start by soliciting the other person’s or group’s point of view and use what you learn to shape your objectives and how you’ll achieve them. Avoid assuming that you have all the facts, that the other side is biased (and you’re not), and that the other side’s motives and intentions are nefarious. Instead, be curious (Help me understand how you see the situation), be humble (What do I have wrong?), and be open-minded (Is there another way to explain this?).
• Uncover and collaborate. Learn the other party’s motivations and concerns. Propose multiple solutions and invite your counterparts to improve on them. Avoid making open-ended offers (What do you want?), making unilateral offers (I’d be willing to…), and simply agreeing to (or refusing) the other side’s demands. Instead, ask Why is that important to you? and propose solutions for critique – Here’s a possibility; what might be wrong with it?
• Elicit genuine buy-in. Use facts and the principles of fairness, rather than brute force, to persuade others. Arm them with ways to defend their decisions to their critics, and create useful precedents for future negotiations. Avoid threats (You’d better agree, or else…), arbitrariness (I want it because I want it), and close-mindedness (Under no circumstances will I agree to, or even consider, that proposal). Instead, appeal to fairness (What should we do?), appeal to logic and legitimacy (I think this makes sense because…), and consider constituent perspectives (How can each of us explain this agreement to our colleagues?).
• Build trust first. Deal with relationship issues head-on. Make incremental commitments to encourage trust and cooperation. Avoid trying to “buy” a good relationship and offering concessions to repair breaches of trust, whether actual or only perceived. Instead, explore how a breakdown in trust may have occurred and how to remedy it, make concessions only if they are a legitimate way to compensate for losses owing to your nonperformance or broken commitments, and treat counterparts with respect and act in ways that will command theirs.
• Focus on process. Consciously change the game by not reacting to the other side. Take steps to shape the negotiation process as well as the outcome. Avoid acting without gauging how your actions will be perceived and what the response will be, and don’t ignore the consequences of a given action for future as well as current negotiations. Instead, talk not just about the issues but about the negotiation process (We seem to be at an impasse; perhaps we should spend some more time exploring our respective objectives and constraints), slow down the pace (I’m not ready to agree, but I’d prefer not to walk away either. I think this warrants further exploration), and issue warnings without making threats (Unless you’re willing to work with me toward a mutually acceptable outcome, I can’t afford to spend more time negotiating).
References:
1- J. Seyfarth, Human Resources Leadership for Effective Schools
2- “Extreme Negotiations” by Jeff Weiss, Aram Donigian, and Jonathan Hughes in Harvard Business Review, November 2010 (Vol. 88, #11, p. 66-75)
No comments:
Post a Comment