CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

10. THE ROLE OF THIRD PARTIES/MEDIATION IN MANAGING CONFLICT 299
•
•
Full-control strategy (FCS): Third party has both process control and
decision control. This is what we earlier referred to as the “autocratic”
or “inquisitorial” approach (Kolb, 1986; Lewicki & Sheppard,
1985).
Part-control strategy (PCS): Third party shares both process and decision
control. This is comparable to Thibaut and Walker’s (1975, 1978)
moot procedure. It is very roughly comparable with advising (Kolb,
1986; Kolb & Glidden, 1986), but there is an important difference. In
advising, the third party shares process control, but he or she may
allow the disputant to retain decision control.
It should be noted that these five strategies are “ideal types.” Actual
managerial interventions could well vary on a continuum that ranges from
no control whatsoever to almost complete control. Many actual resolution
attempts will fall somewhere between these extremes. Nevertheless,
Elangovan’s (1995) five approaches provided a beginning framework. We
will now turn our attention to his rules for diagnosing situations.
Assessing the Situation. As shown in Figure 10.2, Elangovan (1995) presented
six rules; their applications can help one understand the relevant
situational context. We have also quoted (or in some cases paraphrased)
the corresponding list of diagnostic questions. Notice that the first three
rules pertain directly to the dispute, while the latter three emphasize the
conflicting parties.
When speaking of dispute “importance,” Elangovan (1995) referred to
importance for the organization’s mission or effectiveness. When a dispute
is important for a firm’s basic operation, then the manager should
take more decision control (e.g., move toward the left column of Fig. 10.1)
to ensure quality. Seizing decision control could potentially compromise
fairness. However, as Thibaut and Walker (1975, 1978) demonstrated, disputants
tend to accept low outcome control so long as they maintain
process control. Thus, for important decisions supervisory third parties
should err toward allowing the disputing parties process control.
When time pressure is high, a decision needs to be made quickly. Since
managerial hegemony is more efficient, at least in the short run, the third
party will likely wish to sacrifice process control. If necessary, the supervisor
may also need to control the decision as well (Elangovan, 1995, 1998).
Not all disputes are the same, and different problems call for different
solutions. Elangovan (1995) suggested that disputes be divided into two
types. Disputes over privileges (DOP) involve construals of existing rules
or policies. There is some standard or agreement in place, but individuals
interpret it differently. Hence, the challenge lies in finding a shared
understanding that all parties can accept. Disputes over stakes (DOS) are
about changes involving the setting of rules, plans, and other policies.
These disagreements are less “cognitive” than DOP conflicts because the
DOS disputes often involve one’s values and goals. Since DOP disputes