Which conflict resolution style occurs most often when both parties have high levels of organizational power and can use legitimate or coercive power to settle the conflict?

Conceptualization

There are diverse approaches to conflict management and resolution. Some argue that resolution of conflict is not possible given its intrinsic nature in society, and they prefer the term management in explaining any effort to control conflict. Others maintain that even a protracted conflict can be resolved if changes in behavior, policies, and institutions are made to satisfy the interests and needs of parties (Burton, 1990, 1996). If a dispute in an ordinary relationship is not properly managed, it may deteriorate into a situation in which the existence of anger and hatred requires a deeper level of analysis and intensive efforts to overcome misperceptions, estrangement, and hostility. In general, it can be argued that understanding the root causes of adversarial relationships is essential if conflict in a given system cannot be managed without changes in social norms and institutions.

Facework: A Nonviolent Management of Social Control and Conflict Management

Use of nonviolent methodology in conflict management is not always for positive social change, but mostly deployed to manage transgressions by society. Facework is universal and commonly used as a strategy in interpersonal conflicts as well as in identity-based conflicts (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Eskimos, West African Tribes, heads of states, Hunger Strikers in Turkish Prisons, French resistance fighters in the wake of World War II—all utilize facework to make political statements. There are two main points of reference for facework: shaming and guilt (Freud, 1961; Lewis, 1989). Shaming is a nonviolent means for conflict suppression as well as conflict escalation. It is a public act carried out for the public by the public to save face through a process of scapegoating of individuals and/or communities. Shaming is supposed to be a painful process (Bedford, 2004). Guilt on the other hand is a more individualized form of shaming by the individual toward the self. It may be best defined as a punitive judgment of conscience that condemns the person for violating moral, social, familial, existential rules, and values (Barret, 1995). Guilt internalizes conflict.

There is a developmental model of shame and guilt (Ausubel, 1955). Modern societies individualize, minimize, repress anxiety and shame via emphasis of individual responsibility as the internal control. Shame and guilt operate quite differently in individualistic and sociocentric societies. In individualistic societies guilt is framed in reference to principles and values that one is expected to uphold ingrained at a very early age in childhood (Benson, 2001). Shame is experienced at the individual level as an extension of guilt in having failed the ego ideal (Berndsen and Manstead, 2007). Individualistic societies frame shame as a transgression, an embarrassed sense of loss, and emptiness of having failed the ideal (Cua, 2003). Sociocentric societies on the other hand project a tension between the ego and the familial/social ideal where guilt is seen as a consequence of failure to comply with the societal expectations and demonstrate solidarity with others.

There is no clear distinction between shame and guilt as both require public facework in sociocentric societies (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). As a result facework is built on the dual relationship between self-esteem and the esteem of the other (Ting-Toomey, 2017). Individual's pride, loss, or the threat of loss of self-worth is interpreted through social worth. Facework strives to maintain face as the public self-image constructed jointly by participants in a social network which as a result can be lost, granted, or fought about. One major variation of facework across cultures is the construction narrative. Individualistic societies embrace a narrative that emphasizes the need for consistency between private self-image and public self-image while sociocentric societies project the Self as a social-relational construct that makes sense only within the appropriate psychological-affective setting that is culture (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).

Interactive Conflict Resolution

The failure of traditional methods of conflict management to achieve mutually acceptable agreements and peaceful, sustainable relationships between parties locked in destructive and intractable conflict led the field of conflict resolution to develop alternative and innovative methods. Many of these attempts can be captured under the rubric of interactive conflict resolution, which refers to third-party facilitated, small group discussions involving dialogue, analysis, and problem solving that bring influential participants from parties engaged in destructive conflict together in order to mutually diagnose their conflict and to develop jointly acceptable options for resolving it (Fisher, 1997, 2005). Interparty dialogue is an initial form of this approach, but the exemplar method is that of the so-called problem-solving workshop, which is convened and facilitated by a third-party team of skilled and knowledgeable consultants. As opposed to mediation, which seeks agreement on substantive matters and tries to work around emotional issues, the third-party-consultants in problem-solving workshops address both objective aspects (territory, form of government) and subjective elements (perceptions, attitudes, and relationship issues such as mistrust) in the conflict. Thus, the role requires human relations and small group skills for understanding, communication, and problem solving as well as knowledge from social science about destructive conflict and its resolution. Interactive conflict resolution can also include other methods, such as conflict-resolution training, which brings antagonists into the same educational setting to learn about concepts for analyzing conflict and methods for addressing it; cross-conflict teams, who work cooperatively on projects in peacebuilding; and reconciliation, which facilitates postconflict interactions to reestablish harmony and cooperation.

The rationale for interactive conflict resolution is based squarely in the social-psychological approach to and analysis of conflict provided above. Thus, it is assumed that conflicts are a mix of objective and subjective factors, both of which must be addressed for resolution, and that subjective elements play a larger role as conflict escalates, thus increasing the relevance and applicability of interactive methods. It is also posited that constructive and authentic face-to-face interaction between the parties or their representatives is necessary to confront and overcome the distorted and inaccurate perceptions and cognitions, and to change the competitive, adversarial orientations and interactions of the parties. Given the system orientation of the social-psychological approach, it is also clear that any individual changes in cognitions and orientations that occur among participants must be transferred to both policymaking and the public discourse among the conflicting parties for deescalation and resolution.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis

The traditional welfare economics approach to ex-ante impact assessment is cost–benefit analysis that is grounded on market mechanisms; this implies that only the behaviour of individuals as consumers in one single institution, i.e., market, is considered. Is this fully acceptable in public policy? The Nobel Prize laureate A. Sen (2009, p. 239) gives the following answer: ‘… there is such a long tradition in parts of economics and political philosophy of treating one allegedly homogeneous feature (such as income or utility) as the sole ‘good thing’ that could be effortlessly maximized (the more the merrier), that there is some nervousness in facing a problem of valuation involving heterogeneous objects, … And yet any serious problem of social judgement can hardly escape accommodating pluralities of values, … We cannot reduce all the things we have reason to value into one homogeneous magnitude’.

The most widespread multidimensional approach to ex-ante impact assessment is MCDA (see, e.g., Arrow and Raynaud, 1986; Ishizaka and Nemery, 2013; Keeney and Raiffa, 1976; Roy, 1996). The basic methodological foundation of MCDA is incommensurability, i.e., the notion that in comparing options, a plurality of technical dimensions and social perspectives is needed (Munda, 2016). MCDA builds on formal modelling techniques serving the purposes of decision and policymaking; its basic idea is that in assessment problems, one has to first establish objectives, i.e., the direction of the desired changes of the world (e.g., maximize profits, minimize environmental impact, minimize social exclusion, etc.) and then find useful practical criteria, which indicate the consistency between a policy option and a given objective. As a consequence, MCDA and in particular social multicriteria evaluation (SMCE), which has been explicitly designed for public policy, are very useful methodological and operational frameworks (Munda, 2008). In this framework, mathematical models aim at guaranteeing consistency between assumptions used and results obtained. This is a key success factor since multicriteria mathematics does answer to the standard objection that the aggregation of apples and oranges is impossible in a definitive way.

As a tool for policy assessment and conflict management, SMCE has demonstrated its usefulness in many real-world problems in various geographical and cultural contexts (see, e.g., Figueira et al., 2016). SMCE accomplishes the goals of being inter/multidisciplinary (with respect to the research team), participatory (with respect to the community) and transparent (since all criteria are presented in their original form without any transformations in money, energy or whatever common measurement rod) (see Fig. 3). In operational terms, the application of an SMCE framework involves the following main steps:

Description of the relevant social actors. For example, institutional analysis may be performed on historical, legislative and administrative documents to provide a map of the relevant social actors.

Definition of social actors’ values, desires and preferences. In an SMCE framework, the pitfalls of the technocratic approach can be overcome by applying different methods of sociological research.

Generation of policy options and selection of assessment criteria as a process of cocreation resulting from a dialogue between analysts and social actors. In this way, criteria become a technical translation of social actors’ needs, preferences and desires.

Construction of the multicriteria impact matrix synthesizing the scores of all criteria for all policy alternatives, i.e., the performance of each option according to each criterion.

Construction of an equity impact matrix, including all the distributional consequences of each single option on the various social actors.

Application of a mathematical procedure in order to aggregate criterion scores and obtain a final ranking of the available alternatives.

Finally, sensitivity and robustness analysis look at the sensitivity of results to the exclusion/inclusion of different criteria, criterion weights and dimensions. While such analysis may look very technical, in reality a social component is always present too. That is, inclusion/exclusion of a given dimension, or set of criteria, normally involves a long story of social, political and scientific controversy and involves social values and social actors.

These steps are not rigid; problem structuring may vary a lot across different real-world problems.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is a more complex process than conflict management. As conflict unfolds, old identities change and new collectivities are formed. Compromises between parties may not last long if the parties do not feel their concerns have been dealt with satisfactorily. Settling specific cases and issues may not involve changes in the relationship that caused the main source of contention. Conflict resolution requires not only changes in the psychological environment but also transformation of social relationships. Descriptions that focus only on an individual’s motives miss the fundamental nature of social conflict. Conflict cannot be managed within a given system if social norms and political processes are questioned. The activities of conflict resolution entail analyzing the causes of the conflict and exploring strategies for changes in the system that generates adversarial relationships.

One of the criteria for successful conflict resolution includes the satisfaction of nonnegotiable needs and cultural values. Changes in perceptions result from the recognition of the other side’s legitimate needs. Shared interests should be redefined by a participatory, nonjudgmental process. Instead of power bargaining, collaborative processes are needed to discover accommodations that bring net advantages to all concerned. Dealing with a particular conflict situation does nothing to prevent the occurrence of another incident of the same kind if the causes of conflictual behavior are not eliminated. For instance, the resolution of conflict between oil companies and indigenous populations in the Amazon rain forests would not be possible without the proper protection of the forest dwellers’ social and economic well-being. Successful conflict resolution has a preventive effect on future confrontation by eliminating the causes of injustice without using threats.

Generally, any given conflict’s susceptibility to a win-win solution depends on the nature of the issues, the constellation of interests, and the availability of alternative options as well as the commitment of parties to problem solving. Conflict over economic interests can, generally speaking, be more easily negotiated than conflict over values and basic needs. Options can be invented to find win-win solutions for labor–management disagreement or the division of resources in international seas.

Disputes over material goods and role occupancy are transitory, since they do not threaten deep-seated human needs and values. If competing interests are the prime motivator of the conflict, a compromise can be easily bridged. However, conflicts affecting the security of personal identity, the autonomy of an ethnic group, or a nation cannot be resolved by conflict management techniques. The resolution of deep-rooted conflicts, especially those reflecting long-term hostilities and frustration, requires more intensive efforts to understand the perceptions, emotions, values, and needs of the parties. Parties should be helped with assessing the costs of conflict and exploring conditions for its resolution. In contrast with differences over material interests, issues over values and basic needs often resist compromised solutions, and tend to create deep divisions among partisans to conflict. Highly emotional and value-related issues do not disappear following the imposition of third-party decisions. Group identity, autonomy, and freedom cannot be bargained away, and conditions for realization of human dignity and self-fulfillment should be understood and recognized. Elimination of discrimination and other sources of social inequality require changes in political institutions and social norms.

In general, conflict settlement has a limited goal of reaching an agreement between the parties, which enables them to end the violent phase of a conflict. The creation of an atmosphere for coexistence, empathy, and interdependence between parties is essential to the replacement of maligned conflict relationships. At a psychological level, changes in perceptions promote changes in stereotypes along with the removal of enemy images and violence. Reduction in structural inequalities would help to change the social conditions that trigger violent responses. The adoption of nonviolent methods and collaborative patterns of sociopolitical interaction is necessary to allow irreconcilable values and beliefs to coexist. In contrast with management strategies, resolution efforts are directed toward the core underlying causes of conflicts beyond attitudinal changes. The ultimate goal of conflict resolution is the eradication of violent behavior and hostile attitudes through structural changes in conflict dynamics.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: COMMUNICATION AND NEGOTIATION

Interpersonal communication plays a pivotal role in business management and conflict management. Successful conflict management centers on the appropriate use of power and the application of negotiation tactics, which begins with interpersonal discourse. Through conversations, the physical therapist manager or staff physical therapist can influence decisions in a company by influencing the behaviors of others, as well as accomplish such tasks as gaining patient adherence to treatment protocols and gaining staff support of initiatives, while creating a rapport with colleagues or patients.

On the most basic level, in order to be competent at communication, the physical therapist manager or staff physical therapist must be attentive to and mindful of the other person during each interaction and provide appropriate expressiveness both verbally and nonverbally to develop understanding while creating or managing an effective rapport. The intended outcome of the interaction should remain the focus of the communication. One challenge is to keep one's mind from wandering from the current interaction by making a conscious effort to orient oneself to the conversation during discourse. Everyone is capable of processing multiple sensory inputs while entertaining various thoughts in a matter of seconds, and training is required to hone the skill of focusing on the interaction.

Another challenge is to closely monitor and appropriately interpret the other person's verbal and nonverbal cues. When the physical therapist is mindful of verbal communication, he or she takes into account the content, variations in language, tone, pitch, and pace of the other's verbalizations. Taking mental note of these elements can lead to important insights into the emotional undertones of the discourse. Physical therapists who are sensitive to nonverbal forms of communication take into account gestures, timing, use of touch, facial expressions, use of space, and artifacts such as dress and office arrangement when interpreting intent. It is important to listen attentively to and develop understanding from what the other person is saying before developing a response. Critically thinking about what has been said is also essential when considering the potential result of a response.

While engaged in communication, each participant should remain mindful of how less salient factors play a role in competent communication. Examples of these factors include issues of the past (e.g., experience, education, relationships), present (e.g., orientation, knowledge at hand, framing of the conversation, timing, an individual's power), and future (e.g., goals, agendas, strategic plans, positioning, expectations, predictions, forecasts). With all of these considerations being enacted in a matter of seconds, it is no wonder that much of what is communicated is misinterpreted and has the potential to cause conflict. Communication is a skill that every manager needs to continuously improve and maintain. Even those who are viewed as very competent communicators require practice to hone the skill; even when the skills are well established, occasional communication episodes can be viewed as incompetent. Because of the fluidness of discourse and ever-changing contexts, it is virtually impossible to always be competent in communication interactions, but the greater the knowledge of the variables affecting the situation, the better the potential outcome of the communication.

One important variable to consider when conflict is present during an interaction is the exchange of power. Power must be managed for a desirable outcome. Both the manager and employee have varying amounts of power to employ during the interaction. Power is the ability to influence another person's thoughts or actions in accordance with the possessor's wants or needs. At any given moment during an interaction, the manager or employee can construct and exert power that is either confirmed or contested by the other participant in the interaction. Power is, of course, constrained by the values and ethics of an organization, and even by the personal values, ethics, and morals of individuals within the organization. Despite their superior job titles or positions, managers do not necessarily have the power to control the interaction. As John French and Betram Raven claimed, individuals can possess reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power, or expert power (or some combination thereof).21 Each participant in an interaction can exert influence through the power of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (e.g., creating a good reputation, receiving bonuses, improving productivity) or punishments (e.g., decreasing productivity, damaging the work climate, resisting the completion of tasks), as well as legitimate power (based on the cultural acceptance of traditional authority given by a particular role or position), referent power in the ability to create good rapport with others, and expert power derived from knowledge in a particular area. Power differentials cannot be ignored. Because of their formal positions, managers can exert greater control than their employees, but employee queries are seldom ignored because productivity depends on the employees. Likewise, the referent power of employees and the use of informal lines of communication can significantly influence the operation of a company. Controlling the interaction through the use of power has a significant influence on the outcomes of negotiation.

Negotiation is the foundation of conflict management. Negotiation is an exchange of information with an attempt to persuade or develop understanding among disputing parties to obtain a settlement. A mutually successful negotiation results in a settlement that is acceptable to all parties involved. However, many negotiations can result in different degrees of satisfaction among the parties involved, and typically the individual with less power at the time of the negotiation is less satisfied with the outcome. Critical thinking throughout the negotiation process is important. Negotiators should gather and analyze information (preferably before negotiation begins), critically analyze new information while problem solving during the interaction, and create a feasible resolution close to the preferred outcome. The problem-solving process in negotiation is not unlike the physical therapy evaluation in that the manager must gather subjective information and then examine objective findings. This evaluative process facilitates a thorough assessment of the situation and ultimately results in a plan for resolution. Nonetheless, intended goals may differ, as sometimes occurs between patients and therapists, and certain strategies must be employed to influence the negotiation. The first step is to develop bargaining objectives and establish a concrete range of acceptable options. The second step is to assume a mindset to optimize outcomes in good faith through negotiation with proper etiquette and a display of mutual respect. The third step is to select and appropriately employ conflict management strategies.

A common instrument used to assess conflict management strategies is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.47 Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five different modes of addressing conflict: collaboration, compromise, accommodation, competition, and avoiding. Basing their theory on the Managerial Grid Model developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton,11 Thomas and Kilmann focused on the degree of concern for people versus the concern for task completion to determine the mode of conflict resolution utilized. Collaboration, sometimes considered a negotiation technique used to arrive at a win-win situation, occurs when the parties involved in the conflict exchange information openly, seek solutions that are acceptable to everyone involved, and work together without becoming entrenched in an opinion. Arriving at a solution through collaboration typically takes time and energy, but the participants have a high regard for one another and are assertive in satisfying their own concerns for task completion. Compromise, sometimes referred to as “reaching a middle ground,” requires that the participants in the conflict define the concessions that each party is willing to make to resolve the conflict. The defining difference between collaboration and compromise is that the participants involved in compromise have taken a particular stance on the resolution of the conflict. A compromise is more likely to occur when the goals of the participants are mutually exclusive, participant power has been equalized, and participants are committed to resolving the issue without a stalemate. Accommodation is a resolution of conflict in which the opposing participant's request is granted. When a manager reaches a resolution through accommodation, he or she cooperates while suppressing an attempt to satisfy his or her own concerns. A mode of conflict resolution that is considered opposite to accommodation is competition. Competition, also known as a win-lose situation, requires all parties involved to be assertive in the use of their power with less or no regard for satisfying the others' concerns. The individual with the most power in the conflict situation will move forward with his or her resolution of the conflict. This strategy is typically employed when a decision must be made quickly, there is a perceived need to protect one's self-interest, or the resolution of the conflict is vital to the company. The final mode of conflict management addressed by Thomas and Kilmann is avoiding. Avoiding, sometimes viewed as an opposite to collaboration, is a strategy of withdrawing from the conflict. Avoidance is typically used when there is a fear of being in a position of lower power, when the issue is not important to the participant, or when the issue can be resolved by others. Avoidance may also be used as a strategy to allow time for the intensity of the conflict to diminish or for additional information to be gathered, or when the cost of engaging in the conflict outweighs the benefit of resolving the conflict. The appropriate use of any and all strategies depends on reflective analysis and response to a particular situation. Physical therapy managers should not develop rules for when to use a strategy but should instead become proficient enough to use each strategy appropriately for the desired outcome. They should always weigh the consequences of initiating a specific strategy before implementation.

Physical therapy managers who are interested in a conflict management tool that takes into account shifts in stress levels and cultural sensitivity should refer to the Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory.35 Ron Kraybill identified five styles of responding to conflict (i.e., directing, harmonizing, avoiding, cooperating, and compromising), a schema that accounts for varying responses in “calm” and “storm” conditions and differentiates responses on the basis of whether the user comes from a collectivist-as opposed to an individualist-oriented culture.

Negotiation is a term that can be used in interpersonal relationships, such as negotiating the perception of our identity, in addition to legal contexts, wherein two individuals negotiate a contract. In a broader sense, negotiation is considered a subcategory of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). When a third party becomes involved in the resolution of a conflict, the terms mediation or arbitration are used. Mediation is when a third party helps to negotiate a resolution by bringing the parties in dispute closer to a mutual and fair resolution. In arbitration the third party is given the power to adjudicate or impose a solution on the parties in dispute. For further information on mediation, refer to “Model of Standards of Conduct for Mediators,” created collaboratively by the American Bar Association, the American Arbitration Association, and the Association for Conflict Resolution (2005).4

Negotiations inherently involve conflict between individuals or among members of groups. Physical therapy managers frequently work through the process of negotiation. The manager will also have opportunities to mediate or arbitrate conflict between employees, often without prior training. In professional settings, such as physical therapy practices, disagreement cannot be permitted to fester into disenchantment, which results in diminished quality of patient care services. Substantive disagreements, as well as introduction of material changes in policies or procedures, must be aired openly among staff members. Formalized negotiation processes optimize the flow and outcomes of such events.

EXERCISE 1-5

Divide into labor and management teams; use the information on conflict management to prepare for negotiating the issues in the case scenarios below; then bargain over this issue to conclusion (time commitment 1–6 hours). The course instructor should act as facilitator and create confidential information for each team to use in the exercise.

CASE 1

ABC Health System is a leading community hospital in a midsize Northeast city. ABC has three competitors, all of which recently implemented 7-day comprehensive (full-service) rehabilitation coverage for their inpatients and outpatients. ABC is unionized throughout the system, and the rank-and-file have strong resistance to moving from 5- to 7-day full coverage. Good luck!

CASE 2

IBCore Medical System operates in the western half of a large rust-belt state, controlling some 150 clinical sites and employing more than 450 physical therapists, physical therapist assistants, and support and administrative staff. IBCore wants to dominate physical therapy service delivery throughout the region of five nearby states. To do so in the eyes of the Chairman requires, among other things, a federal contract to provide physical therapy services in federal facilities within these five states. To be competitive for such a contract with the current conservative executive governmental team, the following are deemed essential for IBCore to have in place: (1) a drug awareness program for compliance with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act and (2) a comprehensive employee drug-testing program. The employees of IBCore are unionized and are adamantly opposed to workplace drug testing. (Before starting, read the drug-testing vignette below.) Good luck!

Abstract

This article looks into peace strategies such as the possibility of structural prevention of violence, conflict management, and transformation as well as the role of multilateralism in preventing violence. The term “structural accommodation” means the preemption and prevention of violent conflict by the accommodation of demands made by minorities or indigenous peoples that are recognized and seen as justified by a state or regional authority (“recognition of just demands”) before conflicts become violent. Not only states but also regional organizations and the UN system take initiatives in the field of structural prevention by protecting the rights of minorities.

This article looks into peace strategies such as the possibility of structural prevention of violence, conflict management, and transformation as well as the role of multilateralism in preventing violence. The term ‘structural accommodation’ means the preemption and prevention of violent conflict by the accommodation of demands made by minorities or indigenous peoples that are recognized and seen as justified by a state or regional authority (‘recognition of just demands’) before conflicts become violent. Not only states but also regional organizations and the United Nations system take initiatives in the field of structural prevention by protecting the rights of minorities.

The Three Organizational Zones: The S-3 Leadership Model

Effective L-Ns are responsible for organizing everything from money to manpower to time to conflict management to directing energy toward expected outcome and goals. Organizational Intelligence is a term used to describe an L-N’s ability to understand how all the parts of an organization can be transformed into a whole. Effective L-Ns know that it is folly to insulate themselves from an understanding of all three organizational zones (Figure 3.2). The three organizational zones are:

The Leadership Zone (LZ)

The Management Zone (MZ)

The Production Zone (PZ)

It is important to note that what happens in these three zones is not related to the people who occupy those positions. Whoever works there must perform certain tasks. It is assumed that the organization depends on their performance in these roles for survival and growth. The zones are best understood when viewed as a holistic system.

S-3 Leadership is about understanding and leading, ensuring that all three zones work as one. The thinking skills required are divergent and convergent. Divergent thinking involves brainstorming and expanding opportunities for organizational growth. Convergent thinking is a method of problem-solving that searches for known and correct rules to find a proper solution.

The Leadership Zone

LZ is characterized by complexity, ambiguity, and responsibility. Those who work in the LZ are responsible for designing logical organizational structures that can adapt to external competition. L-Ns must design organizations with the ultimate goal of maximizing the bottom line. Enlarging opportunity and solving complicated problems dominates most of the L-N’s thoughts, energy, and time (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3. The Leadership Zone (LZ).

The LZ is characterized by specialization. Specialization tends to promote self-interest rather than the organization’s collaborative oneness. LZ’s specialized expertise refers to how they are intraconnected yet struggle to collaborate with others LZ’s who are concerned about their areas of specialization. Specialized zone interests, or turf wars, often lead to protected boundaries and conflicting viewpoints regarding how to lead the organization.

The Management Zone

The MZ is a pressurized place to be, but it is absolutely essential for an organization’s success. This zone is distinguished by the need for managers to survive as they are caught between the LZ and the PZ. Management’s task is to assume responsibility for strategic direction and then to find ways to implement that strategy in the PZ. MZs frequently feel torn between the LZ that communicates the big picture and the PZ where workers require specific direction in order to do their jobs (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4. The Management Zone (MZ).

Figure 3.5. Management Zone (MZ) sliding Tactics.

Typically, managers in the MZ are given a limited and specialized glimpse of the LZ’s big picture. This commonly results in managers being at cross-purposes with other managers. To make things complicated, MZs have responsibility for most everything but often have not been given the authority to resolve conflicts. This may cause them to isolate away from other MZs and closer to the groups or individuals they manage.

MZs are expected to view the organization from everyone’s perspective and maintain 359° of organizational objectivity. However, organizations tend to “silo” into fragmented divisions, situating MZ’s in the middle, wedged between what the LZ perceives as opportunity and what the PZ perceives as threat. Thus, the MZ is considered the “Tearing Zone.”

Three Alternative Courses of Action in the Tearing Zone

1.

MZs can slide UP to the LZ

2.

MZs can remain in the Middle between LZs and PZs

3.

MZs can slide Down to the PZ

Organizational Fragmentation Can Cause MZ Isolation and Distance Among Other MZs

Sliding tactics are used to cope with system fragmentation, but they only work for a short period of time as sliding does not resolve the fragmentation problem (Figure 3.5).

•

If MZs move horizontally toward other MZs, they may risk being vulnerable to other MZ ladder climbers. Or, they may be perceived as incompetent if they reveal that they need other MZs.

•

If MZs go down to the PZ, they may risk being perceived as breaching LZ confidentiality and perceived as not having what it takes to be an LZ.

•

If MZs go up to LZ, they may risk losing trust among both MZs and PZs. They may be perceived as breaching confidentiality and losing trust.

MZ Dilemma: How do you cope when you perceive more problems and opportunities than can be resolved? MZs are often aware of more problems than they can resolve. MZs tend to cross divisional boundaries which allow them to see the whole organizational system more than either the LZs or the PZs who perceive the organization from the organization’s perimeters. A 360° organizational view often overwhelms MZs. IF they perceive problems that impede the organization’s progress yet they are prevented from crossing boundaries to resolve conflicts and improve organizational efficiencies, they can burn out.

The Production Zone

The PZ must implement the LZ’s strategy as communicated via the MZ. However, production usually does not interpret strategic changes as opportunity. Rather, PZs usually perceive change as a threat to their job security. PZs have little or nothing to say about what comes down from the LZ and, consequently, feel vulnerable (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6. The Production Zone (PZ).

PZs tend to have an Us versus Them mind-set and feel exploited by them—the MZs and LZs. PZs are frequently not listened to and are not included in planning and decision-making. They tend to feel excluded from having a voice in the organization, which tends to reduce their sense of long-term loyalty. PZs are vulnerable to losing their job if LZs choose to reorganize.

6.2.9 Limitations and Future Research

Although our study contributes to an initial understanding of applying the cultural perspective of Yin–Yang harmony to Chinese conflict management, its limitations and constraints should be noted. First, the sample only involved one Taiwan-based manufacturing giant in a country with > 130 million migrant workers in manufacturing. Future studies could collect more comprehensive data in more diversified regions of China. Second, despite new potential research avenues that can be drawn from our study, it is still exploratory in essence and only offers implicit suggestions on possible directions rather than explicit solutions to labour-management contradictions. Hence, future research could focus on further analysing how the 5C model of the harmonizing process can actually be applied to conflict-coping strategies in China.

Overall, the same episode of conflict may denote distinctive meanings or be perceived differently across diversified cultures, and the ongoing social and economic transformation makes Chinese people's conflict management styles even less predictable (Oetzel, Garcia, & Ting-Toomey, 2008; Yan & Sorenson, 2004). Considering that the appreciation of the Chinese currency and worsening shortages of skilled labour have slowed down export growth in China's OEM industry, the government has claimed that China will be moving from a production-based to a more innovation-oriented economy. The export-led OEM business is expected to be even less competitive and profitable in China and the relocation of labour-intensive OEMs from China to other developing countries with cheaper labour is becoming a phenomenon (Chin & Liu, 2014; Fang et al., 2010). Hence, manufacturing employment could be further reduced and conflicts may raise increasing concerns in the Chinese market. It is imperative to collect more first-hand data by probing into relevant labour relations issues in depth in this context.