Gregorio Billikopf Encina
University of California

You tell me that when you get angry and lose control you may say some things you don’t mean, and that by tomorrow you will have forgotten all about it. But the workers tell me they hurt for a long time. 

Richard Bruce, Consultant
Northern California

Beth just got turned down by Carlos, the mechanic. She had asked Carlos to plan on working a couple of overtime hours this coming Thursday and Friday evenings. Beth's nose was a bit bent out of joint. She wondered if Carlos did not yield to her because she was too kind when she asked. Or, because she was a woman. Or, because Carlos was envious that she got the supervisory position for which both had competed. Carlos was uncomfortable with the interaction, too.

If Carlos had no clue that Beth was upset, would this scene still constitute interpersonal conflict? Perhaps. The seeds of conflict are planted when disharmony is felt within any one of the participants. Next time Beth approaches Carlos she may change her approach. She may be more abrupt, leading Carlos to wonder if Beth got up on the wrong side of the bed. Carlos may then, in turn, react negatively to Beth, thus escalating the conflict. Individuals sometimes encounter stress and negative emotion out of an interaction—whether or not they ever confront each other about their feelings.

Wherever choices exist there is potential for disagreement. Such differences, when handled properly, can result in richer, more effective, creative solutions and interaction. But alas, it is difficult to consistently turn differences into opportunities. When disagreement is poorly dealt with, the outcome can be contention.

"When disputants become polarized, what matters most to them is often lost in the jockeying to better position their side, to score points, to win arguments. They may come to forget their original concerns as the battle becomes its own reward. ... Such 'victories' are often false and are followed by renewed and more entrenched conflict."¹ Contention, then, creates a sense of psychological distance between people, such as feelings of dislike, bitter antagonism, competition, alienation, and disregard.

Whether dealing with family members or hired personnel, sooner or later there will be some challenges that will arise. It is unlikely that we find ourselves at a loss of words when dealing with family members. Communication patterns with those closest to us are not always positive, however, often falling into a predictable and ineffective exchange.

With hired personnel and strangers, we may often try and put forth our best behavior. Out of concern for how we are perceived, we may err in saying too little when things go wrong. We may suffer for a long time before bringing issues up. This is especially so during what could be called a "courting period." Instead of saying things directly, we often try to hint.

But the honeymoon is likely to end sooner or later. At some point this "courting behavior" often gets pushed aside out of necessity. We may find it easier to sweep problems under the psychological rug until the mound of dirt is so large we cannot help but trip over it. Sometime after that transition is made, it may become all too easy to start telling the employee or co-worker exactly what has to be done differently.

Persons differ in their sensitivity to comments or actions of others, as well as their ability to deal with the stress created by a conflict situation. While it is good not to be overly sensitive, in that we will not get our feelings hurt as easily, having elephant skin is not good either, as we may fail to see how we affect others.

An isolated episode such as the one between Beth and Carlos may or may not affect their future working relationship. There is much virtue in not easily taking offense. Or by finding constructive outlets to dissipate stressful feelings (e.g., exercise, music, reading, an act of service to another, or even a good night's sleep). It does little good, however, to appear unaffected while steam builds up within and eventually explodes. The larger earthquake is likely to do more damage than the smaller tremors along the way.

During conflicts it is easy to hear without listening. People involved in conflict often enlist others to support their perspective and thus avoid trying to work matters out directly with the affected person.

Our self-esteem is more fragile than most of us would like to admit (see Chapter 6, Sidebar 3). Unresolved conflicts and contention often acts to threaten and reduce whatever self-esteem we may possess. By finding someone who agrees with us we falsely elevate that self-esteem. But we only build on sand. Our self-esteem will be constructed over a firmer foundation when we learn to deal with the conflict rather than by using avoidance tactics. In Spanish there are two related words, self-esteem is called autoestima, while false self-esteem is called amor propio (literally, "self-love").

It takes more skill, effort and commitment--and at least in the short run more stress--to face the challenge together with the other person involved in the dispute. Certainly it seems as if it would be easier to either fight it out, withdraw, or give in. Yet in the long run, working through difficulties together will help us live a less stressful and more fulfilling life.

Fighting it out. A man sat in his train compartment looking out into the serene Russian countryside. Two women entered to join him. One held a lap dog. The women looked at this man with contempt, for he was smoking. In desperation, one of the women got up, lifted up the window, took the cigar off the man’s mouth, and threw it out. The man sat there for a while, and then proceeded to re-open the window, grab the woman’s dog from off her lap, and throw it out the window. No, this is not a story from today’s Russian newspaper, instead it is from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s 19th century novel, The Idiot.

The number and seriousness of workplace violence cases in agriculture seems to be on the rise, and farm employers can respond with effective policies and increased education. While most can readily see the negative consequences and ugliness of escalating contention, we often do not consider how unproductive and harmful withdrawing or giving in can be (although certainly these have their place). Giving in and withdrawing may be incompatible with caring. This is not to say that sometimes people do not have to yield their will to that of another. If a person feels obligated to continually give in and let another have his way, such yielding individual may stop caring and withdraw psychologically from the situation (Chapter 17).

Avoidance. When we engage in avoidance it only serves to weaken already fragile relationships. These "others" (e.g., sympathetic co-workers) usually tend to agree with us. They do so not just because they are our friends, but mostly because they see the conflict and possible solutions from our perspective. After all, they heard the story from us. Once a person has the support of a friend, she may feel justified in her behavior and not try to put as much energy into solving the conflict.

One particularly damaging form of conflict avoidance is to send someone else to deliver a message or confront another on our behalf. At best, the individual not spoken to directly will be hurt that such a tactic was taken. At worst, the go-between person cherishes the power trip involved, allowing himself to become a sort of arbiter in the conflict.

The point is not to suggest that we need to work out every little interpersonal conflict we face. Some conflict situations subside on their own. Often, however, unsolved difficulties tend to escalate. Naturally, there are occasions when withdrawing or giving in is not only wise, but honorable. There are also times to stand firm (e.g., ethical issues). Yet often we are too quick to assume that a disagreement has no possible mutually acceptable solution. Talking about disagreements may result in opportunities to strengthen relationships and improve productivity. Obviously, talking problems through is not so easy. Confronting an issue may require (1) exposing oneself to ridicule or rejection; (2) recognizing we may have contributed to the problem; and (3) willingness to change.

We can reduce stress, resolve challenges and increase productivity through effective dialogue. Such a conversation entails as much listening as talking. While effective two-way exchanges will happen naturally some of the time, for the most part they need to be carefully planned. There may be some pain--or at least moving us out of our comfort zones--involved in discussing challenging issues, but the rewards are immediate satisfaction as well as improved long term relationships.

When faced with challenges, we tend to review possible alternatives and come up with the best solution given the data at hand. Unwanted options are discarded. While some decisions may take careful consideration, analysis, and even agony, we solve others almost instinctively. Our best solution becomes our position or stance in the matter. Our needs, concerns and fears all play a part in coming up with such a position. Misunderstanding and dissent can grow their ugly heads when our solution is not the same as theirs.

Several foes often combine to create contention.

• Our first enemy is the natural need to want to explain our side first. After all, we reason, if they understood our perspective, they would come to the same conclusions we did.
• Our second enemy is our ineffectiveness as listeners. Listening is much more than being quiet so we can have our turn. It involves a real effort to understand another person's perspective.
• Our third enemy is fear. Fear that we will not get our way. Fear of losing something we cherish. Fear we will be made to look foolish or lose face. Fear of the truth ... that we may be wrong.
• Our fourth enemy is the assumption that one of us has to lose if the other is going to win: that differences can only be solved competitively.

The good news is that there are simple and effective tools to spin positive solutions and strengthen relationships out of disagreements. But let not the simplicity of the concepts obscure the challenge of carrying them out consistently. Certainly life gives us plenty of opportunities to practice and attempt to improve. The foes we have outlined above are very real and will likewise take very real efforts to overcome.

Tools for Improved Communication

Two principles have contributed so much to the productive handling of disagreements, that it is difficult to read about the subject in popular or scholarly works without their mention. The first principle, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood," was introduced by Steven Covey, in Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.² If we encourage others to explain their side first, then they will be more apt to listen to ours.

Let me illustrate. As a researcher, I sometimes need to interview farm personnel about their feelings on various subjects. It takes trust on the part of farm managers to permit me to interview employees on what are often sensitive issues. While I have been quite successful, one day I came across a farm owner who was less than enthusiastic about my project.

It was clear from his words and tone that I would not be interviewing anyone at this farm enterprise. I switched my focus to listening. The farmer shared concerns on a number of troublesome issues. Eventually we parted amiably and halfway to my vehicle the farmer yelled, "Go ahead!"

"Go ahead and what?" I inquired somewhat perplexed. To my surprise he retorted, "Go ahead and interview my workers." I had long discarded any hope of talking to any of the personnel at this ranch, but the Covey principle was at work.

The second communication principle was introduced by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their seminal work, Getting to Yes.³ Simply stated, it is that people in disagreement focus on their positions when instead they could be focusing on their needs. By concentrating on positions we tend to underscore our disagreements. When we concentrate on needs, we find we have more in common than what we had assumed. Ury and Fisher suggest that when we focus on needs we can attempt to satisfy the sum of both their needs and our needs.

When the light goes on we realize that it is not a zero sum game (where one person has to lose for the other to win). Nor is it necessary to solve disagreements with a lame compromise. Instead, often both parties can be winners. Individuals can learn how to keep communication lines open and solve challenges when things go wrong. Learning to disagree amicably and work through problems is perhaps one of the most important interpersonal skills we can develop.

Putting it all together

If we come right out and tell someone, "I disagree," we are apt to alienate the person. Successful negotiators were found to be more likely to label their intentions, such as a desire to ask a difficult question, or provide a suggestion. Skilled negotiators, however, were less prone to label disagreement.⁴ Problems are also likely to surge, if we put all our needs aside to focus on another person’s perspective. The other party may think we have no needs, and be quite taken back when we introduce them all of a sudden, almost as an afterthought.

In order to avoid such unproductive shock, I like the idea of briefly saying something along these lines. "I see that we look at this issue from different perspectives. While I want to share my needs and views with you later, let me first focus on your thoughts and observations." At this point, we can now put our needs aside, attempt to truly listen, and say: "So, help me understand what your concerns are regarding ...."

That is the easy part. The difficulty comes fulfilling such a resolution to really listen: to resist the tendency to interrupt with objections no matter how unfounded some of the comments made. Instead of telling someone that we understand (just so they can finish and give us a turn to present our perspective), we can be much more effective by revealing exactly what it is that we understand. All along we must resist, as we listen, the temptation to bring up our viewpoints and concerns. In trying to comprehend, we may need to put our understanding in terms of a question, or a tentative statement. This way we show true awareness.

We may have to refine our statement until the other stakeholder approves it as a correct understanding of his position. It is necessary not only to understand, but for the other person to feel understood. Only now can we begin to explain our perspective, and expect to be fully listened to. Once both of us have laid out our concerns, we can then focus on a creative solution. If we have had no history at all with someone, or a negative one, we need to use more caution when disagreeing. The potential for a disagreement to be side-railed into contention is always there. It helps if we have made good-will deposits over time.

Val Brooks works for an organization that makes this type of open communication the norm, the organizational culture if you will. The firm recognizes that differences between employees can best be solved if the employees are encouraged to work problems out among each other. Val has an adage, "What works, people keep doing." So people are expected to treat each other politely; there is little tolerance for rudeness.

Employees are encouraged to talk to each other if someone has been rude--Val explains that this is so even if the person is a member of management. "If you are rude (1) you are spoken to about it by the person you have been rude to, and (2) if this is an ongoing behavior you don't stay long in our enterprise and you certainly don't get promoted." To facilitate this one-on-one conversation and problem solving, Val tells us, "We have a room folks can go to in order to have private conversations and work things out. In fact, it's something we kid each other about: ‘Hey, do we have to go to The Room or can we just forgive and forget?’" This way communication lines are kept open.⁵

There may be times when intense conflict among personnel may require the participation of a third party. Sometimes there are large enough differences in organizational level, personality or self-esteem within the participants involved in a disagreement, that it may be difficult for them to solve the problem without outside help. For instance, one supervisor had resorted to both bullying and implied threats to get his way. "I would have gladly tried to find a way to help my supervisor achieve his goals," the subordinate explained through her tears. "But now I am so sensitized, I am afraid of talking to him."

Telling employees to work out their troubles on their own, to grow up, or to shake hands and get along, are options. While, in my research, I have seen cases where such an approach has worked, most of the time the conflict will only be sent underground to resurface later in more destructive ways.

A better approach is to allow employees to meet with a third party (which in some cases may be you) to assist them in their own resolution of the conflict. That is the role of a mediator. In contrast, an arbiter makes a judgment favoring one person or the other. At some point, as a supervisor, you may go beyond being a listener and facilitator, and need to make a decision or judgment favoring one position or the other. Your role, then, shifts to that of an arbiter.

When faced with the need for a mediator in a conflict, you may prefer to contract with an outside impartial third party to act in that role. All things being equal, an outside mediator has a greatly superior chance of succeeding. A known insider may be part of the problem, may be perceived as favoring one of the stakeholders, and perhaps the stakeholders may be hesitant to share confidential information with such a person.

If the insider happens to also be a supervisor, this adds to the difficulties. Some mediators easily fall into the trap of being overly directive, taking more of an arbiter's role, and forcing a decision upon the parties. When a supervisor takes on the function of mediator, this tendency to be directive is greatly amplified.

The conflict management process is more apt to succeed if stakeholders have respect for the mediator's integrity, impartiality, and ability. Part of the reason that this respect for the mediator is important, is that stakeholders want to be on their best behavior in an attempt to prove their point. Even though this is an artifact (as the mediator is not an arbitrator) of the situation, this effort on the part of stakeholders to show forth their best behavior is an important tool that will be needed throughout the process. Although not always the case, over-familiarity with an inside mediator may negate this "best behavior" effect.

In the process of contracting, an outside mediator should inform the organization employing her, and the individuals in conflict, that issues brought up in mediation are to be treated with confidentiality. There are exceptions that may require some breach of confidentiality, such as instances where illegal activities have taken place (e.g., sexual harassment), where the mediator is duty bound to let the organization know.

All parties should be informed of exceptions to the confidentiality rule ahead of time. If a mediator has to share information with the supervisor at a later date, based on the exceptions mentioned, this needs to be done on a need-to-know basis and minimize sharing information that could hurt one or both of the parties. Conflict issues may be of a personal nature, or involve touchy matters. Employees may be less hesitant to speak out when assured that the mediator is bound by confidentiality.

A much more sensitive situation involves the role of the mediator when stakeholders are not able to come to a negotiated resolution. Researchers have found that, in some instances, mediation works best when the third party is able to change roles, and in the event that mediation fails, become an arbiter. On the plus side, stakeholders may put their best foot forward and try hard to resolve issues. Unfortunately, while some mediators may be able to play both roles without manipulating the situation, the road is left wide open for abuse of power. Furthermore, individuals may feel coerced and not trust a mediator when what is said in confidence now may be taken against them later.

Mediation

The objectives of mediation are to help stakeholders discuss issues with each other, repair past injuries, and develop the tools needed to face this and future disagreements effectively. Mediators may help participants glimpse at their blind spots, broaden their perspectives, and even muddle through the problem solving process. Yet successful mediators remember that the challenges are owned by the stakeholders and do not attempt to short circuit the process by solving these for them.

Mediators facilitate the process by:

• Understanding each participant’s perspective through a pre-caucus
• Increasing and evaluating participant interest in solving the challenge through mediation
• Setting ground rules for improved communication
• Coaching participants on effective interaction styles
• Equalizing power (e.g., between persons in different organizational levels)
• Helping participants plan for future interaction

The mediator will want to briefly explaining the issue of confidentiality and paint a clear roadmap of the mechanics of the process, so that stakeholders are not surprised or have a sense of being lost. Beside the pre-caucus, mediators should offer stakeholders the opportunity for caucusing at any time they feel a need for it. Caucusing consists of a separate meeting with the mediator away from the other stakeholder. Participants may desire some time alone to reflect on what has been taking place, or to meet privately with the mediator or yet another party. It is important that stakeholder control is emphasized throughout the process. Participants should not agree on something just for the sake of agreement. If there are yet unmet needs, these should be brought up. Sometimes, a few changes in a potential solution can make the difference between an agreement that will fail or succeed.

While there are hundreds of factors that can affect the successful resolution of a conflict, there are some tools that are so compelling in their nature, that I call these the pillars of conflict management. It is my view that the pre-caucus is one such pillar. The pre-caucus consists of a separate meeting between the mediator and each of the stakeholders, before the stakeholders are ever brought together into a joint session.⁶

Many suggest that any talking between the mediator and one of the stakeholders alone can be perceived as suspect, and influence the neutrality of the mediator. Such fears assume a mediator-directive approach, one where the third party wields much power and often acts as a quasi-arbitrator. When the mediation process is understood--from the beginning--as one where each of the stakeholders retains control over the outcome, less importance is given to mediator neutrality. Which is good, because some scholars⁷ are suggesting that it is not possible for mediators to be wholly neutral and not be affected by their ethnocentric values.

There are numerous reasons for the mediator to first meet with each stakeholder separately. Above all of these, is providing each stakeholder a person who will understand her. Because people, especially those who are involved in conflict, have such a high need to be understood before they can focus on the needs of others, this session is fundamental to an eventual positive outcome.

One of the reasons why conflict situations are so challenging, is the natural tendency of stakeholders to each want to express their respective perspectives first. The more deep-seated and emotional the conflict, the greater this need. Because stakeholders have the opportunity to meet separately with the mediator, each in effect does get the opportunity to focus on explaining his needs and perspective first. It should be clear that a mediator's attempt to understand the issues faced by stakeholders is not so the mediator can come prepared with advice and solutions.

When a stakeholder feels understood, an enormous emotional burden is lifted, thus making her more receptive to listen to the other party. At a dairy operation, I had just been introduced to one of the stakeholders by the farm owner, and no sooner did the farm owner leave us alone to begin our pre-caucus meeting, that this man broke down into tears. A similar situation took place at a row crop farm enterprise, where one of the farm managers began to cry, ostensibly because of other issues pressing heavily upon him. I suspect that had these men come right into a joint meeting with their respective contenders, that their feelings of vulnerability might just as easily have turned into anger and defensiveness.

One manager told me that the pre-caucus would be very short with a milker who was not a man of many words. I have found that these "silent types" will often open up during a pre-caucus. One such individual talked to me for over four hours. He had much to get off his chest. The milker alluded to here spoke for the better part of the two hours. By the time we finished the pre-caucus, he felt understood and had gained much confidence, and by the time we were into the middle of the joint session with the other stakeholder, this same employee was even laughing when it was appropriate.

It is true that stakeholders have a special need to be understood by the other party in the contention, but being understood by the mediator contributes much. Often, it is a necessary step in terms of gaining enough confidence to proceed further. As a result, stakeholder confidence is built up while stress level and defensiveness reduced. When each stakeholder feels understood, you increase the chances that they will, in turn, be willing to try and understand each other.

Participants can share their feelings with you in a less stressful environment, where they do not have to watch as carefully how they explain themselves. That will come later. The mediator attempts to understand distinct issues of disagreement and strife, as well as the general outlook of each stakeholder. The mediator may thus find that the other party is thought of as someone who leaves the tools out, does not fill the farm pickup with gas after using it, talks behind people's back, or has a tendency to downplay the contributions of others.

Separating the people from the conflict. Winslade and Monk in Narrative Mediation effectively argue that while people are theoretically free in terms of what they say in a conversation, most often stakeholders feel their responses are influenced by the remarks of the other. This may be a reason why people have trouble moving past the conflicted side of their relationship. Stakeholders often see themselves entrapped within the conflict cycle. In their book, the authors ask individuals how they might have felt forced by the conflict to do or say things that they wish they had not. Or, how the conflict has affected them negatively in other ways. By placing the blame on the conflict itself, the mediator allows the stakeholders to save face and slowly distance themselves from the conflict-saturated story. Such a situation can help stakeholders detach themselves from the conflict long enough to see that each has a choice as to whether he wants to continue feeding the conflict, or not. The authors further suggest that if the mediator listens with an ethic of curiosity, unexpected benefits are likely to arise. Instead of merely listening to confirm hunches and reconcile facts, the third party realizes that stakeholders often bring to mediation an olive branch along with their anger and despair. Thus stakeholders often hold the very keys to the reconstruction of broken relationships and to the solving of challenges. But the mediator has to have enough confidence in people and in the process to allow these issues to surface, and be on the lookout for them so they do not go unnoticed.⁸

During the pre-caucus, the mediator notes as many issues as possible from each stakeholder (they often overlap considerably) and later on introduces them in a systematic fashion, when stakeholders meet together. The more issues raised, the greater the opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss these in the joint session, and not leave any important matters out.

The pre-caucus also permits the mediator to not only help stakeholders understand the value of mediation over other conflict resolution approaches (e.g., arbitration), but also determine if stakeholders should meet together in a joint session.

Increasing and evaluating participant interest in solving challenge through mediation

Ideally, it is preferable for employees to solve interpersonal conflicts on their own. When that is not possible, mediation is more desirable than arbitration; and certainly, arbitration is more advantageous than mistreatment or violence (physical or verbal). While mutual affection and concern cannot be mandated in the workplace, courtesy and consideration can.

The fact that we are at this stage of the mediation process shows that the employees do not have the ability to solve the problem on their own. It is now the mediator's role to help the stakeholders see how solving the problem at the mediation stage will be preferable to a solution through arbitration. In mediation, we have said, the stress is placed on participant control over the decisions made.

As ideal as this individual control sounds, the task is not always easy. Participants have often become so over sensitized to each other and the situation, that it may be difficult for them to be in the same room with the other stakeholder, let alone talk to that person. Such individuals have likely fallen into patterns of negative attributions, where the worst motives are assumed about each other's intentions and behaviors. Such contentious relationships can be devastating to the individuals, sapping any energy or joy for work or for living that they may have once had. This affects not only the stakeholders, but others around them.

There seems to be a pattern in deep-seated organizational interpersonal conflict: each stakeholder is overly distracted with the stress of the conflict, has difficulty sleeping at night, and is generally thinking of quitting. Sometimes individuals may be in denial about the negative effect that contention has in their lives. One manager claimed that he just got angry and exploded, but that his anger did not last long. He explained that he did not hold grudges, that by the next day he had put aside any bad feelings for the other person. During a mediation session this same manger admitted that a recent confrontation with the other stakeholder had made him so angry it left him sick for a couple of days. Part of the role of the mediator in meeting individually with each stakeholder is to help individuals visualize a life without that stress.

In the process of meeting with the stakeholders, the mediator can make a more informed determination as to whether to proceed with the mediation itself, where both stakeholders are brought together, or recommend arbitration or another approach instead. As wonderful as mediation can be, under certain circumstances more harm than good can result from bringing parties together. The purpose of mediation, again, is to bring issues to the surface so they can be discussed, to provide opportunities for stakeholders to repair past injuries, and to better equip them to deal with future disagreement without contention. The purpose of mediation is not to simply provide a safe place for stakeholders to exchange insults!

Transformative opportunities. In The Promise of Mediation, Bush and Folger suggest that mediators watch for and recognize transformative opportunities, in terms of recognition that can be offered between participants. Such recognition may involve compliments, or showing understanding or empathy for the needs of the other.⁹ For instance, in a performance appraisal that had a touch of a conflict management session, a grower explained, "One thing I really value about this farm manager, is that he shows pride in his work--something I really admired in my father." The mediator asked the grower if he would be willing to share this compliment with the manager, once they met in the joint session. While the grower at first refused to share these positive feelings with the farm manager, in the end he did so. The compliment meant all the more because at the end it was the grower's decision to share it.

Looking for the positive. While a number of issues can affect the likely success of proceeding to a joint mediation session, perhaps none is as telling as asking each stakeholder for what they value in the other contender. This question should be asked after the participant has had a chance to vent, and the mediator has shown understanding for the challenges from the stakeholder's perspective.

There is a human tendency not to find anyting of value in a person with whom there has been deep seated contention. After a person feels understood by the mediator, there is a greater likelihood that the stakeholder will see, at the end of the tunnel, perhaps even a long tunnel, a little light of good in his contender.

Without this tiny light of hope, without this little olive branch, there is no point in proceeding. If there is nothing of significance that one person can value about the other, more harm than good can come out of the mediation. And it is not enough to say that the other person "is always on time," "drives a nice pick up," "is attractive," or "does not smell."

As a mediator, I have found that sometimes one of the stakeholders will be a little more noble than the other, a little more prone to see good in the other. On one occasion, I had already met with such an individual in a pre-caucus. Now, I was asking the second stakeholder for the positive characteristics of the first in his pre-caucus When the answer was “none,” I was able to share the positive things that were said about him by the first employee. Then, I proceeded to once again ask for positive qualities that the second stakeholder could give me about the first. Because stakeholders want to seem reasonable, especially after hearing something positive about themselves, I was surprised by a second refusal by the more reticent stakeholder to find anything of value about the other.

“Well, if there is nothing positive you can say about the other employee, there is no purpose in attempting a conflict management session together,” I explained. I was somewhat exhausted, and suggested a short break. When we returned from the break, the taciturn stakeholder had prepared a long list of positive attributes about the other employee.

Repairing past injuries. If you are still struggling to make a decision as to whether to bring two individuals together, it helps to role play some of the potential pitfalls ahead of time. For instance, at one farm operation a manager's angry outbursts were well known. Martin had minimized the seriousness of his problem. A co-mediator role-played the place of the second manager, the other party in the contention. "Martin," she began. "When you get angry at me, shout at me and use profanity, I feel very badly."

"Well, I am so sorry I have used bad language with you and been angry at you," Martin began nicely. "But ...." And then Martin began to excuse himself and to place conditions on controlling his anger. At this moment I had to interrupt. An apology with a comma or a but is not a true apology, but merely a statement of justification, I explained. In total frustration Martin turned to me and said, "Look, everyone has their style. Some people deal with disagreement this way or that. I am an expert in intimidation. If I can't use intimidation, what can I do so I don't get run over? Am I supposed to just sit here and tell him how nice he is and not bring up any of the areas of disagreement?"

This was a sincere question and cry for help; a perfect opportunity to coach a receptive stakeholder on effective negotiation skills. It is better not to apologize at all, than to half apologize, or worse, to apologize when it is not meant (Chapter 17). We proceeded to role play the issue of anger outbursts once again. This time, Martin truly apologized and agreed that he would really work at controlling his anger and swearing. The apology was perfectly executed in the role play. It was clear that it must have felt good to Martin to have done so, for he took the opportunity to apologize early on in the joint session.

Opportunities for mutual participant recognition exist when parties take the time to apologize for past affronts or misunderstandings. During the joint meeting itself the mediator can also underscore what appears to be an attempt by one stakeholder to validate another.¹⁰ A sincere apology can do much to help repair a past deteriorated relationship. As the mediator meets with stakeholders in the pre-caucus, potential points for mutual recognition and validation can be brought up, and suggested.

When mediators have done their homework during the pre-caucus, the joint session can be very positive and much less stressful. This case involving Martin was one of the most difficult I had ever dealt with, yet once the joint session began, both managers did over 90% of the talking. They were extremely cordial, attentive, and amicable, showing understanding for each other. Although the problems were not solved from one day to the next, a year later there had been much positive progress.

Finally, the pre-caucus can be used by mediators to help participants learn how to avoid dysfunctional communication styles. This is partially done by setting and reviewing ground rules. Allowing participants to have input into the ground rules is helpful.

Setting ground rules for improved communication

Once the courting period or honeymoon we spoke about earlier is over, we are often seen by others in a way that is more reflective of who we really are. People, however, often project the person who they hope to become, and this is not all bad. When people feel they have been exposed in their nakedness, so to speak, they sometimes reason that there is no point in further pretending to hide anything else, or be someone they are not.

Because those who are closest to us are more likely to have seen through who we really are, it is more likely that we will first stop pretending with family and close friends. This is quite unfortunate, of course. This accounts for why we may treat those who are most important to us, worse than we treat a stranger or acquaintance. We may no longer try and put forth our best behavior. We all know people who stopped pretending a long time ago, with family, friends, colleagues or strangers. While on the surface this seems as a positive trait, it is not. Just because we are not perfect, we should not give up trying to be more like the person we want to become.

One of the important roles of a mediator, then, is to help stakeholders who have crossed the line and stopped pretending, to re-cross the line back. A willingness to apologize and accept an apology are often required. Furthermore, it helps to clearly state our intentions ahead of time, so that our new and corrected behavior is not misunderstood.

Individuals, then, attempt to cultivate an identity or projection of who they are. For instance, an individual may see herself as an intellectual, another may see himself as an outdoors person, a cowboy, or an artist. Of course, such individual identity labels are just a small part of a much deeper and complex set of traits that any individual would value. An important part of mindful interpersonal communication is the mutual validation of such identities, through a process of identity negotiation. People tend to build bonds with those who seem supportive of the identity they attempt to project.¹¹

We often hear the expression, "he knew exactly what hot buttons to push." At least to some degree, such button pushing has the effect of challenging cherished values or labels that are integral to another's self projection. When you think about it, some of the most hurtful things another individual can say to us, are an attack on our self image or valued identity.

The process of coaching and modeling effective interaction styles is an ongoing task for the mediator. The objective is for stakeholders to increase their understanding of effective interpersonal relations. Before conflicting parties meet together it helps to work on a set of ground rules. You may want to review these once again when everyone meets together, and remind participants as needed.

Ground rules will help keep the conflict from escalating any further. Whatever time is taken to explore ground rules now will save time later after the discussion has begun. It is not the role of the mediator to simply allow the contenders to exchange cynical remarks, insults, name calling, and threats in a psychologically safer environment. Nor should the mediator allow contenders to drag her into the controversy. Instead, the mediator may have to remind employees to direct their comments to (and keep visual contact with) the other person involved in the disagreement.

Overly vague or broad statements such as "You are inconsiderate," or "You are overbearing," do little to facilitate mutual understanding. Specific issues, or events, and what motivated each to act in certain ways, may be more useful. In the pre-caucus ask the stakeholder who uses such sweeping statements for examples of times when the other individual acted in inconsiderate, overbearing, untrustworthy or selfish ways. These behaviors can later be discussed in the joint session, as people first tell their stories of what took place and then work on plans to avoid falling in similar traps in the future.

Calling each other names, such as inconsiderate or selfish, can have a very negative effect. For instance, a Mexican dairy employee called another a racist. That is a pretty big word, with very strong connotations. The other stakeholder, a Portuguese milker, was very hurt by the use of such a word. The mediator stopped the conversation to make sure all were defining the word in the same way. "Are you saying that this milker treats you different because you are Mexican and he is Portuguese?" After the term was well explained and a few more questions asked, the Mexican milker ended up apologizing and the Portuguese employee had the opportunity to tell a story that illustrated he was not racist.

Beside name-calling, the use of other labels can increase contention. Calling someone by a label, even when the person identifies with such, can be offensive depending on the tone and context. A more subtle use of labeling, one that can have the same negative effect, is describing our own perspective as belonging to a desirable label (e.g., a particularly cherished philosophy, principle or belief), while assigning that of another to an undesirable one.

Stakeholders also look for ways to to enlist even theoretical others into supporting their views. They may thus attempt to inflate the importance of their opinions with such statements as "everyone else agrees with me when I say that ...." Or, attribute a higher source of authority to their words: "According to such and such an [author, or respected person] ..."). A stakeholder may wish to discount the opinion of others by speaking of their experience: "In my twenty years of experience ... ". Once again, the tone and context of the conversation may make some of these statements appropriate in one circumstance and not in another. People may resort to dysfunctional tactics when the force of their argument does not stand on its own merits.

Along with labeling, threats can do much to reduce a stakeholder's negotiating power. Whatever power a person has, once the use of that power is threatened or used, the strength of that power begins to dissipate. While especially so with direct threats, this is also true even with even veiled threats. When these intimidation tactics are bluffs, then the loss of negotiation power is further magnified (Chapter 17).

The mediator may also coach employees into owning up to their own feelings by using "I" statements.¹³ "I feel upset when you change my radio station while I am milking," is preferable to "You make me angry when ...."

Only one person should speak at a time while the other makes every possible effort to understand what is being said. One defensive tactic is for a participant to introduce another topic. While sometimes two topics are so closely related that they cannot be separated, generally new topics can be placed on a "list of other matters" to be brought up later.

In Chapter 12 we talked about the importance of mirroring as well as other interpersonal communication skills. Workers involved in highly charged conflict situations frequently try to ridicule their contenders by distorting or exaggerating what has been said. I call this distorted mirroring. For instance, an employee may inaccurately mirror a comment, such as: "So you are telling me that you never want me to... ," or, "I get it, you think you are the only one who ...," "You used to be [something positive] but now [negative statement]," "It seems that you are always ... these days."

Participants may sometimes seek shelter from a true give-and-take with such statements as, "That's just the way I am,"¹⁴ or, "Can't you take a joke?" While a mediator cannot force someone out of his shell, he may help participants understand the detracting effects these statements may have. The earlier the mediator disallows distortions or manipulative tactics, the sooner employees will realize that this is not a verbal battle.

A mediator may also need to coach employees on how to formulate questions and comments. Participants need to talk without putting each other on the defensive or coming across as accusatory. Especially when under the stress of a conflict, people will be quite sensitive to intended and non-intended statements of double meaning. A critical role for the mediator may be to ask for clarification or coach stakeholders in properly reflecting statements.

The time has come to bring both stakeholders together into a joint session. I have found that for deep seated conflicts, it is not unusual to need as much as two hours with each stakeholder in the pre-caucus, as well as about three to five hours together in a joint meeting.

A mechanical aspect to mediation that is extremely powerful is the sitting arrangement. I like to have the two parties sit facing each other such that they are in a position to have good eye contact, yet making sure there is enough space between them so their personal space is not violated. By having the two participants face each other, the message underscored is that they are there to talk to each other. The mediator is there to help only when needed. Because people who are in conflict often discount the other person, having to exchange eye contact can be powerful medicine toward reconciliation. A table may be appropriate in some circumstances, and not in others.

Moore, in The Mediation Process tells a humorous story about the possible importance of a table. Two parties had met informally on several occasions, but when they finally met in a room with a table, one of the parties commented that now they could really get down to serious business, and settled their differences that day.¹⁵

As the mediator, I sit far enough away that stakeholders would have to turn their faces to make eye contact with me. I sit beyond their peripheral vision, so participants cannot know how I react to what they say. There is no way for them to check, for instance, if they have "scored a point." Stakeholders soon realize that they actually, truly are there to talk to each other. If one or the other of the stakeholders turns toward me in an attempt to enlist my support, I can quickly suggest that it is the other person who has to hear the message.

This is such a powerful tool, that I have seen it work wonders even when the complete mediation approach outlined in this chapter was not used. I have seen people apologize to each other, be more considerate, call each other by name, and use many positive behaviors simply by the use of this artifact. When you combine the seating arrangement with the pre-caucus, the power of both these tools is multiplied. Having now been understood by the mediator, it is often the natural thing for stakeholders to reach out to each other, even without any further prompting than asking participants to address each other rather than the mediator. I consider such a seating arrangement a second mediation pillar. (This seating arrangement is so effective that it can be utilized when acting as a third party interpreter, performance appraisal facilitator, or in other human resource management activities.)

Figure 13-1. Seating arrangement for participants (red) and mediator (blue). Table (yellow) is optional.

Along with the sitting arrangement, the mediator can also encourage participants to call each other by name. This can be a difficult thing at first. People who have been contending tend to discount the other person by calling them "he," "she," "the boss," or something other than the person's name. Addressing someone by their name acts in the opposite way as discounting. It is a way of acknowledging and validating the other person's humanness.

Successfully dealing with any issue under contention (e.g., the offering and accepting of an apology, or having participants agree on how they will deal with a future challenge), can be very energizing and give the participants the confidence they need to face the next difficulty to be brought up. Winslade and Monk explain that people in contentious relationships are often surprised to find out that the other stakeholder not only has been affected negatively by the conflict (e.g., experienced increased stress, difficulty in sleeping), but also wants the contention to go away. Hearing such comments from the other party can also have a transformative effect. A great burden is lifted from stakeholders when they can experience, once again, conversations that are either conflict-free or conflict-diminished. ¹⁶

Throughout the process, the mediator helps the conflicting parties recognize areas of agreement and disagreement. One of the roles of the mediator is to encourage participants to be more specific in their agreements, to help question potential landmines, and to encourage stakeholders to recapitulate what seems to have been agreed upon. When the individuals are helped to focus on areas of agreement, it is easier to keep them talking. When dealing with more difficult challenges, part of the role of the mediator is to help the parties from becoming discouraged, by showing them how far they have gotten so far.

It is good to talk about the past. A discussion of past behaviors is essential in order to analyze patterns of conflict and help participants find constructive ways of handling future disagreements. Without understanding the past, it is hard to prepare for the future. At some point, however, the focus of discussion turns to that of future behaviors, rather than past injuries. The sooner the participants can focus on the future, the greater the chances of successful resolution.¹⁷

Stakeholders can be taught to utilize the concepts introduced earlier, in terms of participant positions versus needs. Recall the case of Beth and Carlos at the beginning of the chapter, where each of their stances appears quite incompatible with that of the other (i.e., whether or not Carlos should yield to the prescribed overtime request).

Mediators help dissipate contentious feelings by teaching stakeholders how to find creative ways to achieve the sum¹⁸ of needs (theirs and the opposing ones). When going past an obvious stance and instead look into needs, we may perhaps find that (1) Beth wanted the tomato harvester repairs completed before harvest--which is scheduled to begin early next week, while (2) Carlos wanted to be home to celebrate his daughter's quinceañera (coming of age party) Friday evening.

Once the manager and mechanic understand each other's needs, they can agree on a solution—perhaps the mechanic can work the overtime on Wednesday and Thursday. This case may seem simple and the solution obvious—except perhaps to Beth and Carlos before they explored each other's needs.

The approach of separating our position from our needs, along with doing it in such a way that parties attempt to show an understanding of each others needs, is another mediation pillar. It works well for analyzing more complex issues and friction, as well. For instance, at one vineyard a manager listed among his needs, protecting the needs of the farm worker crews. The other manager involved in the conflict exclaimed in wonder and support, "But that is one of my needs, too!"

It is my view, nevertheless, that mediators should not be in too big of a hurry to move participants from their position statement and explanation of their fears and needs, to problem resolution. It is vital to first truly understand the nature of the challenges that seem to divide individuals. Allowing stakeholders to hold an initial position on a subject does much to allow each to feel somewhat understood, and to retain a sense of control and ownership over the process. A great tool is to have stakeholders explain, to the best of their ability, the position of the other.

Stakeholders tend to discount each other by refusing to even acknowledge that the other has a position. For instance, a cook was asked to acknowledge that the field foreman needed meals to arrive on time to the crews. Yet the cook could not focus away from the fact that there were meals being wasted each day.

“You see, its his fault because …”

“We are not talking about faults at this time, we just want you to state the perspective of the field foreman,” the mediator interrupted.

“Well, you see, he thinks that he can get away with ….”

The cook had to be stopped over a dozen times, because it was so difficult for him to even state (and thus validate) the other’s position. Once he stopped evading the process and gave the position of the field foreman, and the field foreman did the same for the cook, they quickly came to a solution that benefited everyone and saved the grower money. A missing step here, one that may have helped smooth the transition between an internal focus and stating the other stakeholder's position, would have been to first encourage the stakeholders to ask fact finding and non-judgmental questions of each other.¹⁹ An agreement was made that the field foreman would radio the cook with an exact meal count for the day. Because the cook had an exact count, he had fewer meals to cook and thus could produce them faster.

A structured way to clarify positions and needs for a two-person negotiation is outlined in Sidebar 13-1. (A similar approach could be taken when two opposing groups are involved. In a multilateral negotiation, the total number of columns would simply be a reflection of the number of distinct positions. Participants would look for ways to meet everyone's needs. This approach may be used with or without a third party mediator, and may even be used in solving inner conflicts.)

Sidebar 13-1. Position vs. needs²⁰ in conflict management

Position B

• Need A-1
• Need A-2

1. Participants divide a paper, chalkboard, or wipe board into four sections (as shown above).
2. Participants seek to understand and record each other’s position (i.e., stance).
3. Participants are free to restate, modify, or further clarify their position at any time.
4. Participants now seek to understand and record each other’s needs. Taking the time to ask effective questions of each other (see Chapter 12) is an important part of reaching such understanding.
5. Participants brainstorm ways of fulfilling the sum of all needs (in some cases solutions may not be obvious at once and stakeholders may want to sleep on it). For brainstorming to be effective, possible solutions should not be evaluated at the time, and outlandish and extreme possible solutions should be entertained. Only later, are these solutions examined for the positive and negative factors that they contribute.
6. Participants should resist solutions where they no longer have to interact with each other. To avoid each other takes little creativity and is seldom the best solution. Instead, participants need to seek creative, synergetic solutions.
7. Tentative co-authored agreements are evaluated and refined in light of potentially difficult obstacles that such solutions may yet need to endure.
8. Agreements—including a possible co-authored new position—are recorded.
9. Participants consent to evaluate results at pre-determined time periods.
10. Fine tune agreements as needed and work on other challenges together.

Stakeholders should not come to the table ready to expose or impose their solution. In negotiation it is critical for stakeholders to first focus on defining and understanding the nature of the challenge. It is often when stakeholders are not able to move past their positions or stances, that negotiations break down. Also, stakeholders want to feel that they have some control over the decision-making process. This is hard to do when decisions are made by others before the problems are fully explored (Chapter 17).

Each stakeholder needs to be vigilant in making sure that a solution will meet the other person's needs, as well as their own. In one mediation session, for instance, a stakeholder was all too quick to accept defeat from an individual who yielded her wishes to his. Stakeholders need to remember, that for the most part, the only good solutions are those that will work for all the individuals involved in the long run.

Furthermore, sometimes people will yield to another as a test. These individuals want to see if the other stakeholder has the minimum amount of care for anyone else, besides themselves. As a tactic, putting up a trap to see if someone will fall in it, is hardly a good idea, of course. The more emotion involved, the less likely that the other stakeholder will have the presence of mind to step back rather than accept your defeat. Another, somewhat manipulative approach, is for a stakeholder to "give in" just in order to be able to hold it against the other later on.

Negotiation will not be satisfactory when a person is more intent on:

• punishing another rather than either coming to an agreement or modifying future behavior
• winning rather than solving the challenge

Sometimes negotiation is attempted but people’s basic needs are incompatible. This may be especially so when no distinction can be made between a person’s need and her position.

When negotiation has failed—for whatever reasons—a clear need for resolving the dispute through arbitration may develop. Bush and Folger would suggest, however, that if a door is left open for continued conversation, and if individual empowerment and mutual recognition have taken place, then mediation was not a failure. Much more of a failure, they would argue, is for a mediator to be so focused on having stakeholders come to an agreement, that the agreement is forced, reducing the chances that it will be long lasting.²¹

Equalizing power

Participants may bring different amounts of power into a situation. As long as both are interested in the process of negotiation to achieve a solution, power is essentially equalized. The effective mediator helps parties listen and communicate with each other. You may also need to draw out an employee who is having difficulty expressing himself. Finding a neutral location to meet is also helpful.

A stance from either party indicating a lack of interest (1) in talking about the problem, or (2) in the other person’s needs, would indicate unwillingness to be involved in the negotiation process. Mediators can suggest that the joint session take place in a location that is neutral and private--without telephone or any other sort of interruptions.

Helping participants plan for future interaction

It is easier for employees to improve communication when aided by a competent mediator. Part of the responsibility of the mediator is to help employees anticipate some of the challenges they will face in the future. A key challenge is helping stakeholders to take the time to listen and communicate. Principal among the needed skills, is for sensitive listening. It is difficult to always be on the alert for such sensitive listening and interaction as has been discussed throughout this and the last chapter.

Persons who have had trouble communicating may want to agree on a code statement. In effect this code says, "This is important to me and we need to talk about it in a sensitive way." Earlier, we discussed an organization where employees could talk about their challenges in The Room. At one vineyard operation, two farm managers who had been having difficulty communicating without contention, agreed that when they needed to talk, they would likewise meet by the Palm Trees.

While a location can be helpful, and privacy essential, to work things out with reduced distractions, The Code is just as much about getting into the right frame of mind as anything else. Individuals do not have to wait for their organizations, of course, to find an appropriate meeting place. Those who have been involved in a conflict will want to make it a habit to meet often and talk.

It sometimes takes years for employees to get themselves into a pattern of negative interaction. It is unlikely that one session will cure this no matter how outstanding the mediator or the participants involved. One or more follow-up sessions with the mediator may help participants refine skills and evaluate progress made.

The supervisor as an arbiter may do everything a mediator does, but at the end will make a judgment that the employees are expected to follow. It may be clear from the outset that employees expect the supervisor to take the role of an arbiter. Or, it may become increasingly evident as mediation is taking place, that an arbiter will be needed. The supervisor needs to clearly communicate his role. If the role changes, workers can be made to understand that, too.

Because it is normally preferable for all parties involved to have a challenge solved at the mediation rather than arbitration stage, it helps for a supervisor to be slow in taking on the role of an arbiter. Especially when these two individuals will have to continue to work together afterwards. During the process of listening to the various perspectives, and before making a decision, an arbiter may wish to offer employees the opportunity to work out their own problem, or to work out difficulties through mediation.

At times, a judge and a judgment are needed. My advice to supervisors who have to arbitrate is to avoid trying to make both parties happy with the decision. Most of the time it is simply not possible. It may be an admirable goal for mediation, but not for arbitration. Instead, it is required of the arbitrator to be impartial (there is no room for favoritism) and fair (even if this seems one sided, if the one side is clearly right).

The well-loved story of wise Solomon of old is an early example of arbitration: Two harlots had given birth. Some time after that, one of the women, while she was sleeping, rolled over her child and suffocated it. When she woke up that night and found the dead infant, she traded him for that of the other. When the second woman woke up, she found the dead child by her. But when morning came, she could clearly behold that this was not her child. Each woman claimed to be the true mother of the baby that was still alive, and took their conflict before King Solomon. The king simply asked for a sword, and then ordered: "Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other." While the false mother thought this was a fine idea, the true mother asked the king to save the child--even if this meant giving the infant to the other woman. Solomon thus determined who the real mother was, and returned the child to her.²² Unfortunately, Solomon’s pretended initial solution to the contending mothers (to divide the baby in half) would often be carried out by supervisors in their modern day arbitrator role. In their effort to try and please both workers, they create a compromise that is often unfair, and frequently unworkable.

It takes little skill, and even less strength of character, to arbitrate in this manner. Instead, a supervisor who arbitrates with fairness is more apt to be respected by employees in the long run. After difficulties are worked out, employees often find that their relationships have been strengthened.

Wherever there are choices to be made, these differences may provide challenges or opportunities. One difficulty is the possibility that differences will result in increased contention. As a result, supervisors may have to act as mediators and arbitrators from time to time. The advantage of mediation is maintaining responsibility for problem solving and conflict resolution at the level of those who own the challenge. Selecting an outside mediator often makes sense.

Several roles taken on by the mediator include understanding each participant’s perspective; setting ground rules for improved communication; coaching participants on effective interaction styles; equalizing power; and helping participants plan for future interaction.

When the supervisor acts in the role of an arbitrator, it is more important to make a fair judgment than to try to please all workers involved.

1. Rothman, Jay. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, California, 1997, p. 22.
2. Covey, Steven. Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.
3. Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; & Patton, Bruce. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd ed.). Penguin Books, 1991, and Deetz, Stanley, A., & Stevenson, Sheryl L. Managing Interpersonal Communication, Harper & Row Publishers: New York, 1986.
4. Rackham, Neil, "The Behavior of Successful Negotiators." In Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases, (3rd Edition), Edited by Lewicki, Saunders & Minton. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 1999, p. 348.
5. Brooks, Val. Adapted from HRnet post, 21 Apr 1999.
6. Billikopf Encina, Gregorio. "Contributions of Caucusing and Pre-Caucusing to Mediation." Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, in press.
7. Winslade, John & Monk, Gerald, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, California, 2000, pp. 34-36. The authors also site the work of Burton, J., Conflict: Resolution and Prevention (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), p. 204.
8. Winslade, John & Monk, Gerald, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, California, 2000.
9. Bush, Robert A. Baruch & Folger, Joseph P. The Promise of Mediation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
10. Bush, Robert A. Baruch & Folger, Joseph P. The Promise of Mediation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
11. Ting-Toomey, Stella. Communicating Across Cultures, New York: The Guilford Press, 1999.
12. Folger, Joseph P.; Poole, Marshall Scott & Stutman, Randall K. Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, New York: Longman, 1997, p. 216.
13. Deetz, Stanley, A., & Stevenson, Sheryl L. Managing Interpersonal Communication, Harper & Row Publishers: New York, 1986.
14. Walton, Richard E. Managing Conflict: Interpersonal Dialogue and Third-Party Roles (2nd ed.), Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1987, p. 108.
15. Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process (2nd Edition), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.
16. Winslade, John & Monk, Gerald, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, California, 2000, pp. 34-36. The authors also site the work of Burton, J., Conflict: Resolution and Prevention (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), p. 82.
17. Robert, Marc. Managing Conflict From the Inside Out, University Associates, 1982, pp. 119-128. Excellent suggestions are also provided on how to manage conflict among groups.
18. Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; & Patton, Bruce. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd ed.). Penguin Books, 1991, and Deetz, Stanley, A., & Stevenson, Sheryl L. Managing Interpersonal Communication, Harper & Row Publishers: New York, 1986.
19. Personal conversation with Neil Bodine, July 2001, founder and member of Board of Directors of The Workplace Institute (now Center for Collaborative Solutions)
20. No distinction is intended between the concept of need and that of interest. In chapter 17, where we further discuss some of these issues, the terms are used interchangeably.
21. Bush, Robert A. Baruch & Folger, Joseph P. The Promise of Mediation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
22. 1Kings 3:16-28.

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher and the author. Printing this electronic Web page is permitted for personal, non-commercial use as long as the author and the University of California Agricultural Issues Center are credited.

Labor Management in Ag
Table of Contents