Glasl (1982, 1997, 2002) recounted from his research and observations in his professional consultations, nine stages in the escalation of conflicts. This progression starts with parties to a conflict being irritated over the seeming impossibility of seeing eye to eye on an issue and ends at Stage Nine with a dedication to the destruction of the other party, even if it means mutual annihilation. Obviously only a few conflicts escalate that far: there are offsetting processes that tend to impede such extreme escalation.
Smyth (2012) writes about the Buddhist philosophy of mindfulness and shows how it can be applied to a conflict to diffuse it no matter to what stage at has gotten. He describes each of Glasl’s nine stages in detail, citing examples, and effectively says “If the conflict has reached stage X, it is still not too late to apply mindfulness to salvage the situation”, and then he shows how it might be done. In doing so, he doesn’t provide empirical evidence for the validity of his thesis, nor even much anecdotal evidence. Despite this, I believe he’s right because I have for many years practiced such techniques (albeit not calling them mindfulness). I might be challenged as having no credentials to give authority to this view, but it seems to me that doing is what makes an expert.
Smyth (p. 49) describes mindfulness in this way: “Deliberately raising awareness of what are usually automatic activities — for example, opening the car door, sitting in, and putting on the seat belt — creates some space around the actions and less use of “autopilot.” With practice, a person can extend this skill to many different life situations: from dealing with illness, to social interactions, to making important decisions. He can disengage his autopilot and consider whether its programming is still appropriate for that situation. With increased awareness, he can choose action based on a more conscious and comprehensive appreciation of the situation.”
In other words, mindfulness is a way of viewing reality so as to distance us from our motives, and this is particularly useful when a negotiator’s motives are emotionally based and are not serving the resolution of the conflict. I watch television and see near horrible things happen and perceive it as entertainment because I am distanced from it, so why shouldn’t I also perceive the drama of my own life as entertainment also? That approach of awareness of emotions and detached viewing of them helps to sever them as instigators of conflict. For example, suppose I spent a half hour being berated by a business partner when I had simply asked for a policy to be changed. Suppose that the attack was a series of assumptions and red herrings bound by the hoops of circular reasoning, but by being detached and impervious to this show I was able to keep reminding him that his comments, while they might be valid and might be the basis of a different conversation, had nothing to do with the issue at hand. In this case, I have refused to buy into the emotions and this has precluded escalation of the conflict. In the end, we have negotiated an outcome with which I am happy. This is typical of my experience, so I am confident of the validity of Smyth’s thesis even if I can’t “prove” it. To me it is an honest application of reality and it is truthful. It is rational and it is just.
An example of Smyth’s prescription is with respect to Stage Two of a conflict. He describes Stage Two (p. 53): “In Stage Two, discussion becomes verbal confrontation: rational argument gives way to rhetorical tricks, such as seriously exaggerating the other party’s position in order to present it as absurd. In this stage, the parties move further from the original issue…so that the general position of parties rather than a specific issue is at stake.” He suggests (pp. 54-56) then that “As the disputants’ awareness shifts from the issue that prompted the dispute to defense of the individual or group ego, a mindful approach would be to note that the ego’s standard operating procedure is to interpret everything in terms of itself: all incoming data are filtered through that lens… Propping up the self-image can take significant emotional and mental effort that leaves little energy for considering the original issue that separates but binds the parties. Mindful practice can enable parties to question the reality of that self-image or at least to avoid rushing to its defense…. Experience with formal meditation certainly helps in this process, as would learning informal techniques to interrupt the flow of thoughts with present moment awareness. For example, many people find that deliberately focusing on their breathing enables them to “view” their sensations, thoughts, and feelings with detachment rather than “be” inside them. Breathing in, a person may recognize the pressure she feels to respond to provocative statements, she may notice a building sense of panic, or perhaps have a flashback to previous unpleasant experiences. Breathing out, she can observe her sense of panic so that it does not take over her consciousness.”
References
Glasl, F. (1997). Konfliktmanagement: Ein handbuck zur diagnose und behandlung von konflikten fur organisationen und ihre berater. Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag.
Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and roles of third parties. Conflict management and industrial relations, edited by G. B. J. Bomers and R. B. Peterson. The Hague: Kluwer Nijhoff.
Glasl, F. (2002). Conflict mediation in an advisory organization: A practical example. Promoting
peace, edited by G. Baechler. Berne: Staempfli Publishers.
James, N. J. (2004). Australian legal education and the instability of critique. Melbourne University Law Review, 28(2), 375+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Smyth, Leo F. "Escalation and mindfulness." Negotiation Journal Jan. 2012: 45+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Oct. 2012.
No comments :
Post a Comment