# Presentation: 442636

## Conflict Resolution Competence for Managers

**NIH Office of the Ombudsman**
**Kevin Jessar, J.D., Ph.D.**
**Deputy Ombudsman, NIH**
**June 25, 2008**

## Kenneth A. Lechter 
Lynda T. O’Sullivan
Liz Waetzig

- Lynda T. O’Sullivan
- Liz Waetzig

- Part I: Introductions

**Notes:**
They are here gratus – as inter-agency cooperation and collaboration
They work regularly with generals and colonels – not just the kind we have here at NIH but real ones
They are deeply involved in integrated conflict management systems in USAF
Kenneth Lechter - Associate GC in USAF OGC – DR Division; Responsible for AF’s Negotiation Center of Excellence
Lynda T. O’Sullivan - Assistant GC for DR; Responsible for ADR implementation in acquisitions and environmental disputes
Liz Waetzig – California attorney – lawyer, mediator, facilitator; member of the faculty of the Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development; focuses in the areas of health care, mental health, child welfare, education and other human services

## 2008 PMAP requirement
Other reasons why such a requirement is important

- Other reasons why such a requirement is important

- Contexts for Workshop

**Notes:**
PMAP 2008 requirement: that all employees must  complete an ADR training event
Consistent with 20 year revolution in government ADR
Other reasons Collaborative nature of science (e.g., NIH Roadmap)
Nature of workplace relationships
Continuing/ Marriage
What rules apply and how clear are they?
Mission

## Details: 
Integrated Conflict Management Systems
Conceptually
NIH
Interest Based Negotiation Fundamentals
Cross Cultural Literary
NIH Resources  

- Integrated Conflict Management Systems
- Conceptually
- NIH
- Interest Based Negotiation Fundamentals
- Cross Cultural Literary
- NIH Resources

- Workshop Overview

## Part II: The Office of the Ombudsman

## The Need for the Ombudsman 

**Impetus at NIH**
**Joint venture of OIR, HR, and EEO**
**Limits of formal systems**
**Organizational self-correction**
**Flexibility**

- _Formal systems_
- Are often  limited and ill suited to providing solutions
- Fail to help people identify and expand options
- Exacerbate tensions and conflicts
- Are unavailable for many things arising in the life of an organization

- E.g., Claim of scientific misconduct/ fraud

- Kevin Jessar, NIH/CCR, January 2007

## Ombudsman – resource to all NIH staff to address any workplace concern

**Ombudsman – resource to all NIH staff to address any workplace concern**
- _Confidential_:  off the record resource, except threats of violence; no one has to know you contacted us
- _Neutral_: as to person, position, outcome
- _Informal/ Flexible_: able to address things for which there are not procedures
- _Independent_: not integrated into line management
- Especially reassuring to employees and managers

**Notes:**
It can be difficult to work with emotions when you are in a conflict – thus a 3rd party neutral can assist

## Ombudsman trademarks – What We Do:

-  Identify issues and options
-  Clarify desired outcomes
-  Strategize – to whom and how can I best raise this issue or concern?
-  Assist with thinking through difficult situations (personally, professionally)
-  Facilitate understanding and resolution
-  Pursue organizational development NIH-wide through systemic feedback

**All of this is done in a confidential, neutral setting – with someone familiar with NIH culture.**

## Ombudsman trademarks – How We Assist: 

- We offer (Generally):
- Coaching - Sounding-board; “Devil’s advocate”
- Referral
-  Facilitating difficult discussions (or mediation)
-  Shuttle diplomacy
-  Systems feedback
-  Use of scientific consultants

**Notes:**
This stuff (active listening; negotiation concepts, etc.) can sound touchy/ feely
This stuff is NOT rocket science – it is not terribly conceptually difficult 
But the trick is handling things well in a highly charged situation where you have things at stake
	- how do you listen then?
	- what kinds of questions do you ask then?
	- how do you frame the issues then?

## Part III: Managing Conflict (and Emotion)

## “[A]t the risk of considerable overgeneralization, the data suggest that as a group, science and technical professional are poorly attuned to the dynamics of their interactions with others and to the needs and feelings of those around them” (5).

“[T]hought and deliberation [are] focused on scientific and technical matters and not at all on interpersonal consequences” (7). 

Paradox: These findings come at a time when scientific research is increasingly cross-disciplinary and moving towards a team science approach – both of which more urgently require these collaborative skills.

- “[T]hought and deliberation [are] focused on scientific and technical matters and not at all on interpersonal consequences” (7).
**Paradox**: These findings come at a time when scientific research is increasingly cross-disciplinary and moving towards a team science approach – both of which more urgently require these collaborative skills.

*Cohen and Cohen* in Lab Dynamics argue:

**Notes:**
There is ample social science research to suggest that the characterological profile of scientists is one not attuned to social dynamics.

In the paradox is the exigency for developing conflict management skills.

## Studies found as well that scientists and technical professionals are largely emotionally stable, impulse controlled, and open and flexible in thought and behavior.

“What this suggests is that despite less-than-optimal interpersonal skills, technical professionals have a high capacity, motivation, and willingness to learn and improve.  What they need is data showing the utility of improvement, as well as the opportunity to learn” (Cohen and Cohen 9).

**“****What this suggests is that despite less-than-optimal interpersonal skills, technical professionals have a high capacity, motivation, and willingness to learn and improve.  What they need is data showing the utility of improvement, as well as the opportunity to learn” (Cohen and Cohen 9).**

**Notes:**
Research also found: 

## Emotions running high can . . .  
Narrow our vision and creativity
Stifle curiosity, openness and playfulness of mind needed to solve problems
Suppress our recognition of nuances - complex matrix of feeling and cognition
Reflect perception by participants that identity is somehow threatened

- Narrow our vision and creativity
- Stifle curiosity, openness and playfulness of mind needed to solve problems
- Suppress our recognition of nuances - complex matrix of feeling and cognition
- Reflect perception by participants that identity is somehow threatened

- What Makes workplace conflicts difficult?

**Notes:**
This stuff (active listening; negotiation concepts, etc.) can sound touchy/ feely
This stuff is NOT rocket science – it is not terribly conceptually difficult 
But the trick is handling things well in a highly charged situation where you have things at stake
	- how do you listen then?
	- what kinds of questions do you ask then?
	- how do you frame the issues then?

## We cannot say that emotion should not enter in to the situation

Once aroused emotions do not go away
There is often a symmetrical nature of emotional response – when someone raises their voice at you at you, you are more likely to do the same
It can be difficult to work with emotions when you are in a conflict – thus a 3rd party neutral can assist

- Once aroused emotions do not go away
- There is often a symmetrical nature of emotional response – when someone raises their voice at you at you, you are more likely to do the same
- It can be difficult to work with emotions when you are in a conflict – thus a 3rd party neutral can assist

**Notes:**
Once aroused emotions do not go away [They follow their own complex logic]
There is often a symmetrical nature of emotional response – when someone raises their voice at you at you, you are more likely to do the same [There is a reciprocity and contagion element]
It can be difficult to work with emotions when you are in a conflict – thus a 3rd party neutral can assist

## Harvard PON research suggests underneath the multiplicity of emotions are 5 core concerns

Appreciation
Affiliation
Autonomy
Status
Role

- Appreciation
- Affiliation
- Autonomy
- Status
- Role

## Each difficult conversation is really three difficult conversations

The “what happened?” conversation – truth, intentions and blame
The feelings conversation – feelings are an intrinsic part of difficult conversations
The identity conversation – Am I competent? Am I a good person? Am I worthy of love?

- The “_what happened_?” conversation – truth, intentions and blame
- The _feelings_ conversation – feelings are an intrinsic part of difficult conversations
- The _identity_ conversation – Am I competent? Am I a good person? Am I worthy of love?

## Before starting the difficult conversation determine

What is your purpose in having this conversation? What do you hope to accomplish?
Is this the best way to address the issue and achieve your purpose?
Differentiate between attributing “blame” and understanding “contribution.” Blame looks backward, understanding looks to the future.

- What is your _purpose_ in having this conversation? What do you hope to accomplish?
- Is this the _best way to address_ the issue and achieve your purpose?
- _Differentiate_ between attributing “blame” and understanding “contribution.” Blame looks backward, understanding looks to the future.

## Once the conversation begins 
Start from the third story – the difference between your story and theirs.
Incorporate both perspectives in the discussion.
Make clear what your purpose is.
Invite the other to join as a partner in sorting out the situation.

- Start from the third story – the difference between your story and theirs.
- Incorporate both perspectives in the discussion.
- Make clear what your purpose is.
- Invite the other to join as a partner in sorting out the situation.

## Exploring the stories
Try to understand the other’s perspective.
Acknowledge feelings about the issue.
Share your viewpoint, intentions and feelings.
Try to figure out how your differences developed.

- Try to understand the other’s perspective.
- Acknowledge feelings about the issue.
- Share your viewpoint, intentions and feelings.
- Try to figure out how your differences developed.

## Part IV: “Interest-Based” Communication

## As you
Focus on the issues
Explore all interests underlying issues
Look for possibilities and opportunities and 
Work toward satisfying the interests of all parties
 . . . 
Listening, Question-Asking, (Re)Framing will be keys to successful resolution

- Focus on the issues
- Explore all interests underlying issues
- Look for possibilities and opportunities and
- Work toward satisfying the interests of all parties
* **. . . *
*Listening, Question-Asking, (Re)Framing will be keys to successful resolution*

- Handling Conflict: How can you gain *perspective* to handle a conflict optimally?

## Broadening Perspective: Listening 

***What do we Sense?***
-  What _data_ have we
- picked up or missed?

***How do we Think and Feel about the situation?***** **
- _Beliefs_ based on past experience
- _Interpretations_ of events
- _Expectations_ for the future
*How do we then feel?*
- Based on thinking process

***How do we Act?***
- What have we been
- doing/what have we tried?
- What options do
- we have for future?

## Broadening Perspective: Asking Useful Questions

- What need/concern does this satisfy?
- What makes that important?
- How is that useful?
- What will having this do for you?

## Broadening Perspective: Reframing

- Changing the wording or characterization of something to make it easier to understand, easier to accept, or more conducive to joint problem-solving.
- New concept must be data-based – i.e., grounded in the statements, facts provided.
- Useful for
- Moving from positions to interests;
- Giving parties another perspective;
- De-escalating conflict;
- Moving from past to present & future

## Broadening Perspective: Reframing

- Difficult issues
- Difficult tactics
- Difficult frames (tragic, debunking, etc.)
- Difficult systems issues
- Risk: Provoking mistakes

## Reframing – Examples:
1.  Frame issues as questions or problem statements.
“How can we . . . ?”  “What can be done to . . .?”
2.  Frame issues so that multiple solutions are possible.
Wrong:  Who will have use of the centrifuge?
Better:  ?
3.  Separate issues or problems from people.  De-personalize  conflict.
Wrong:  Let’s talk about John’s hogging all of the reagents.
Better:	  ?
4.  Frame issues in terms of the situation or relationship of the parties rather than in terms of the person’s attitudes or behavior. 
Wrong:  Let’s talk about your negative attitude to helping anyone in the lab.
Better:	  ?
5.  Frame issues so that they are a joint problem.
Wrong: How can Jean let everyone know on time when she’s changed lab policy on using the centrifuge?
Better:	  ?
6.  Frame issues in terms of future relationships rather than guilt or innocence.
Wrong: Could we decide who was at fault for the samples being lost?  
Better:  ?
7.  Frame issues in a manner that does not threaten any party’s sense of self or security.
Wrong: Let’s talk about the insensitive way the PI gives criticism.
Better:	  ?
8.  Frame issues in an objective and neutral manner.
Wrong: Let’s talk about why the staff scientist is incompetent.
Better:  ?

- 1.  Frame issues as _questions or problem statements_.
- “How can we . . . ?”  “What can be done to . . .?”
- 2.  Frame issues so that _multiple solutions_ are possible.
- Wrong:  Who will have use of the centrifuge?
- Better:  ?
- 3.  Separate _issues_ or _problems_ from _people_.  De-personalize  conflict.
- Wrong:  Let’s talk about John’s hogging all of the reagents.
- Better:	  ?
- 4.  Frame issues in terms of the _situation_ or _relationship _of the parties rather than in terms of the person’s attitudes or behavior.
- Wrong:  Let’s talk about your negative attitude to helping anyone in the lab.
- Better:	  ?
- 5.  Frame issues so that they are a _joint problem_.
- Wrong: How can Jean let everyone know on time when she’s changed lab policy on using the centrifuge?
- Better:	  ?
- 6.  Frame issues in terms of _future_ relationships rather than guilt or innocence.
- Wrong: Could we decide who was at fault for the samples being lost?
- Better:  ?
- 7.  Frame issues in a manner that does _not threaten_ any party’s sense of self or security.
- Wrong: Let’s talk about the insensitive way the PI gives criticism.
- Better:	  ?
- 8.  Frame issues in an _objective_ and _neutral_ manner.
- Wrong: Let’s talk about why the staff scientist is incompetent.
- Better:  ?