Thursday, May 19, 2016

The Conflict Paradox

At a Disrupt HR conference I was introduced to a really stimulating concept about the idea of the 'Conflict Paradox' by one of the speakers, Sandra Walden Pearson. Sandra kindly referred me onto this article which discusses the paradox a bit more as part of a short book review.

The Conflict Paradox - Seven Dilemmas at the Core of Disputes, Bernard Mayer

The idea here is that Bernard identifies seven paradoxes that frame how people tend to compose their approaches to different situations. The assumed general consensus being that one needs to be on a articular side of the fence with one of these elements.

  1. Competition and Cooperation
  2. Optimism and Realism
  3. Avoidance and Engagement
  4. Principle and Compromise
  5. Emotions and Logic
  6. Neutrality and Advocacy
  7. Community and Autonomy

On the outset, each of these items appear polar opposites and mutually exclusive. What I found really interesting however is that Bernard does not describe them as contradictions at all but rather "codependent realities".  

This all builds off the concept of moving from a win-lose scenario to a win-win scenario where experienced negotiators are able to intellectually manage both of these elements at the same time.

As HR professionals we are often provided with situations where we appear to be presented with conflicting elements. Take for instance a flexible work arrangement, where one party is seeking flexibility in work patterns while the other wants to maintain productivity as per standardised norms. From one point of view these a contradictory, however as HR professionals we know that flexibility is an excellent avenue to actually boost productivity. A 2013 Ernst & Young report on The role of women in unlocking Australia's productivity potential is a great paper discussing flexibility.




It's interesting to consider situations were particularly skilled practitioners would be able to both identify and then capitalise on both of these codependents in order to achieve a net gain for both sides. Obvious examples come up around considerations with enterprise bargaining for instance where employers and unions can be firmly pushing their relative position built on the foundations of one of these elements (competition, principle, advocacy...)

I'll have to save a more detailed review for when I have had the chance to read further. In the meantime it's interesting to consider how one can manage complex situations by challenging the conception that it needs even be a win-loss scenario - make it a win-win.

No comments:

Post a Comment