page 281: "Managing conflict effectively requires those in conflict to acknowledge that their accounts are their truths, not The Truth."
In organizational conflict or everyday conflicts, this quote is a basic tenet of conflict resolution. It's always interesting to see how even a small, seemingly straightforward event may be slanted in such different directions based on participant accounts. Whether it's perspective or an underlying agenda, accounts may vary wildly. Further clouding the Truth are participants interjecting insinuations of others' motivations into their accounts.
On fortuitous occasions, there may be an unbiased 3rd party to give an unbiased account of what happened. Unfortunately, the term "unbiased" is really more of a theory... most people harbor bias whether consciously or subconsciously. The only way to resolve conflict in these cases is to get as many relevant accounts as possible and all relevant facts... similar to our legal system.
Streaning Star Trek: Insurrection Full Movie
6 years ago
3 comments:
I don't believe in unbiased third accounts or collecting all the facts. This passage seems to suggest that information is always subjectively interpreted and if we acknowledge that we can begin negotiation and discussion of our interpretations. It's about realizing that there is more than your own image and prestige at stake; your collaborative relationship is in jeopardy. It can change your perspective on how to engage and manage conflict without feeling threatened or attacked. You don't need multiple accounts to resolve conflict, you just need two people who are willing to openly and thoughtfully discuss their perceptions.
One of the tenets of a critical approach to communication is that all truth is positional - meaning, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, just a matter of "privileging" one opinion over another. In an organizational setting, "the company line" will always be the privileged truth against which conflict is measured. In my opinion a flat organization is more conducive to resolving conflict through discourse, than a hierarchical organization that subsumes conflict through the rules of authority. Nevertheless, organizational structures are mediated by people, and I believe conflict resolution is possible even under the most rigid circumstances as long as participants are motivated to engage in discussion.
A lot of people online this Sunday . . . I agree with Kristle that there is no such thing as an unbiased account from a third party. It can be helpful to get a variety of perspectives on an issue, but even the most detached observer will be viewing the situation through her or his cognitive lens, biases, agendas, and the like. However, a third party can help bring people together to have a productive discussion. Still, in contrast to Kristle, I don't agree that two people openly talking necessarily will lead to conflict resolution. Openness can be highly overrated and is often used as an excuse to say whatever one might be thinking, however hurtful that might be. CommBuzz makes a good point about hierarchy getting in the way of conflict management. In theory, a flatter organization should lead to better spaces for addressing conflict. Still, like working in team, training in conflict resolution makes the process more likely to be productive.
Post a Comment