CHAPTER TEN
MODEL #7: THE BOUNDARY MODEL
BACKGROUND OF THE BOUNDARY MODEL
This chapter contains a model unlike any discussed so far, developed by conflict resolution practitioner Larry Prevost.1 In his doctoral dissertation, Prevost looked at the nature of conflict and crisis and suggested an underlying framework to understand what drove it. The Boundary model is a creative and unique way of looking at conflict that attempts to frame it through a single, specific lens.
DIAGNOSIS WITH THE BOUNDARY MODEL
The Boundary model suggests that the common element that all things, people, and organisms share is “boundaries.” Boundaries operate on many levels. On a physical level, everything has a physical boundary and physical limits. On a behavioral level, all activity is subject to boundaries of many kinds. Boundaries in human society take the form of laws, agreements, contracts, rules, procedures, conventions, orders, decisions, and so on.
Boundaries, as the model defines them, have four key elements:
- Defined Standards for Behavior: Boundaries must have defined standards for maximum and/or minimum allowable behavior. These standards are a form of limits that the boundary establishes. For example, on our highways the speed limit typically defines a maximum speed of 70 mph, and a minimum speed (typically in the 40 or 50 mph range). If you exceed the limits in either direction, you are subject to a fine.
- Jurisdiction or Legitimacy: Boundaries must have “jurisdiction,” which is a source of legitimacy for existing at all. In our highway example, that legitimacy comes from the legislation passed by the state, or from one of the many related laws that a government has jurisdiction to enact to control the roads and highways.
- Authority or Enforcement: Boundaries must have some form of “authority.” Authority in this case is an entity, process, person, or group responsible for enforcing the boundary. Without any process or person enforcing it, a boundary effectively doesn't exist. In the highway example, the police have the authority to enforce speed limits.
- Norms: Boundaries usually (though not always) have a certain degree of tolerance, latitude, or variance, which are called “norms.” Norms are the reasonable latitudes around a boundary that we accept without perceiving the boundary to have been violated. In our highway example, if you asked the average driver how fast you could go on the highway without risking a ticket, the minimum you are likely to hear is 80 mph. This means that although the boundary is 70 mph, the norm is actually 80 mph.
There are two key definitions that the practitioner needs for working with conflict in the Boundary model (Figure 10.1). They are:
Figure 10.1 Boundary model
- Definition of “Conflict” in the Boundary Model: Conflict is caused when a boundary is challenged, threatened, or circumvented. Conflict requires an intervention in order to resolve it. If the norm, for example, expands to 85 mph and the party with authority for this boundary fails to intervene, it starts to threaten the very existence of the boundary (Figure 10.2).
Figure 10.2 Boundary model: Conflict
- Definition of “Crisis”: A crisis is an escalation of a conflict. When a boundary is threatened, violated, or circumvented, and this situation is allowed to continue without intervention, it results in the boundary collapsing altogether (Figure 10.3). When this happens, it causes a crisis. If 85 mph routinely goes unpunished, there is effectively no speed limit left on the roads, resulting in the norm continuing to expand at will. In the end, there will be a significant increase in accidents and deaths.
The Boundary model states that most conflict is caused by four specific reasons directly related to how people interact with the boundaries they face:
- Lack of clarity around what the boundary is. For example, a new employee may not know that breaks are strictly timed and enforced at their workplace. The employee may be told to “go grab a coffee” and then get yelled at when he returns 30 minutes later. Boundaries must be clear and specific for them to be enforceable.
Figure 10.3 Boundary model: Crisis
- Lack of acceptance of who has authority to enforce a boundary. For example, an employee might approach a colleague about taking too long on his break, only to have the colleague respond, “It's not your job to be watching my breaks.” Essentially, the colleague is refusing to accept the authority of a coworker.
- Lack of acceptance of who has jurisdiction over a boundary. For example, a company might refuse to comply with an “industry-led” voluntary initiative to reduce emissions, saying that no law requires them to comply. This is a way of refuting the jurisdiction of the industry at large to hold them to a boundary.
- Deliberate expansion of a boundary past acceptable norms. For example, an employee might come in about five minutes late a few days in a row. No one says anything, as others in the office do this once in a while. Soon, the employee is frequently coming in 15 minutes late. Management says nothing, but other employees start to complain (conflict). Not long after, the employee is regularly 20 to 30 minutes late and on occasion 45 minutes late. Other employees now start doing the same, and when a memo is issued asking all staff to be on time, it is largely ignored (crisis). In this example, the norms began to expand with no intervention. When norms are sufficiently expanded, conflict and crisis ensue.
According to the model, the most common causes of conflict are a lack of clarity about boundaries and norms, or a deliberate “pushing of the envelope” to expand the norms as far as possible, reasons #1 and #4. It is human nature to push boundaries and expand norms. Children are constantly testing the boundaries we set, often to find out what will happen if they either expand them or violate them. Although it may appear that this tendency to push the envelope is the cause of much conflict, the real cause is that the people with jurisdiction and authority often overlook the expanded norms. It's this lack of intervention that sustains and escalates conflict.
CASE STUDY: BOUNDARY MODEL DIAGNOSIS
For the purposes of our case study, we'll diagnose three boundary issues that appear to be a source of conflict between Sally, Bob, and Diane.
To start with, there are two broad boundaries that exist in almost all workplaces:
- Management's rights to make operational decisions that employees must abide by
- Workers' rights to a safe workplace, free of harassment and discrimination
Keeping these general boundaries in mind, three areas of boundary conflict in the case study are:
- Start and finish times of the job (deliberate expansion of norms):
Clearly, the established start-time boundary is 9:00 a.m., and Bob is violating this boundary. He states that “others do this as well,” implying that he is behaving within the “norm,” a view not shared by Sally. For Sally, the norm is that staff can be 10 to 20 minutes late a few times per year, whereas Bob feels that the norm allows him to be late on a weekly basis.
- Legitimate chain of command followed (challenging the jurisdiction and authority):
In this case, Sally has established a new requirement or boundary that Bob take direction from Diane. Bob appears to be refusing to accept this decision and is thereby violating this boundary. A refusal to follow direction from the person you report to is often referred to as insubordination. Bob, however, does not view Sally's judgment or decision as legitimate, and therefore is challenging both her jurisdiction and authority in the situation. After being threatened with discipline, Bob adopts a “work-to-rule” approach, a strategy that tacitly acknowledges Sally's authority (Bob wouldn't have changed anything if he felt Sally had no authority at all) while at the same time refutes Sally's jurisdiction or right to require him to take direction from Diane.
- Respectful behavior in the workplace (lack of clarity of the boundary around respect, or deliberately expanding the norms):
This boundary issue relates to the way Diane speaks to Bob- Bob believes that Diane is violating a boundary that requires respect in the workplace. Most workplaces have boundaries around respectful behavior, though few are clearly articulated. Bob feels that Diane is violating this boundary; Diane clearly doesn't feel she is being all that disrespectful, especially given how she feels Bob is behaving.
In all three situations described, the parties are solidly in conflict, meaning that the boundaries between the parties appear to have been violated, and/or the jurisdiction and authority of the boundary is being challenged. Unless an intervention takes place, it will quickly develop into a crisis and begin spreading to other employees in the area.
As we can see, diagnosing the situation through the Boundary model often yields functional and practical results, rather than psychological or theoretical ones. Let's look now at what the Boundary model can suggest in terms of interventions that may help.
STRATEGIC DIRECTION FROM THE BOUNDARY MODEL
Strategically, the Boundary model suggests that when a conflict or crisis occurs, there must be an intervention. This intervention must have as its primary goal the reestablishment of all four elements of the boundary.
- Boundary Clarified and Reestablished: The first step must be to reestablish the boundary itself, not the norms. Norms are defined as the reasonable or accepted latitude to the boundary, and have no formal existence in and of themselves. For example, if you receive a speeding ticket for going 90 mph in a 70 mph zone, the ticket is for 20 mph over the speed limit; the court does not say, “Because traveling at 80 mph is the norm, you were really speeding by only 10 mph.” The boundary itself is what has legitimacy, and that is what must be reestablished.
- Jurisdiction Clarified and Reestablished: The jurisdiction must be established and accepted by all parties. Until all parties accept the legitimacy of whoever is establishing the rules, those rules will not be respected.
- Authority Clarified and Reestablished: The authority must be established and accepted by all parties. Until all parties accept the authority of whoever is monitoring and maintaining the rules, those rules will not be respected.
- Norms Allowed: Finally, as an optional step and only after the preceding three steps have been taken, some reasonable latitude from the boundary may be allowed. It's an optional step because a “zero-tolerance” policy may also be appropriate, which simply means that the norm becomes identical to the boundary. Should certain norms be allowed, they must be monitored closely, as there is a strong human tendency to continually expand the norms whenever possible.
Based on the interventions that the Boundary model suggests, a simple guide can be developed based on the diagnosis of what is causing a conflict:
| Diagnosis: | Strategic Intervention: |
| Violation of a boundary due to lack of clarity or differing expectations: | Clarify the boundary; discuss the expectations of all parties. Clarify the consequences of boundary violation. |
| Violation of the boundary due to deliberate expansion of its norms: | Reestablish and clarify the boundary. |
| Lack of acceptance of jurisdiction: | Gain acceptance of the jurisdiction; reestablish legitimacy for the jurisdiction. Bring in higher authority to clarify and define jurisdiction if needed. Negotiate new jurisdiction if appropriate. |
| Lack of acceptance of authority: | Gain acceptance of who has authority; reestablish legitimacy for authority. Bring in higher authority to clarify and define authority issues if needed. Enforce boundary if necessary. Negotiate new levels of authority if appropriate. |
Based on these strategic interventions, let's look at what the parties in the case study might do to manage the conflict.
CASE STUDY: BOUNDARY MODEL STRATEGIC DIRECTION
In the case study, the strategies to intervene can be applied to all three issues identified in the diagnosis.
Start and finish times followed
Clearly, the established start time was 9:00 a.m., and Bob was violating this boundary. The only question is whether he was within the workplace norms. If Sally was acting as the “practitioner” in this situation (in other words, there was no mediator or third party helping, and Sally had to assume responsibility for managing the conflict), she could intervene by reestablishing the start-time boundary and the expectation with Bob that he arrive no later than 9:00 a.m. every day. Both Bob and Sally would need to be clear about the consequences for violation, and Sally, as the authority, would need to enforce the boundary if it was violated again. In addition, Sally could explore with Bob the reasons Bob has been late, and look at other solutions, such as flex time, to see if that might solve the problem for both parties. The key step here, however, would be to reestablish and clarify the boundary. In response to Bob's statement that “others are doing it,” Sally should ensure that the other team members are held equally accountable for understanding and complying with the start and finish time boundary.
Legitimate chain of command followed
In this case, Sally has established a new boundary in requiring that Bob take direction from Diane. Bob, however, did not view Sally's judgment or decision as legitimate and, therefore, challenged both her jurisdiction and authority in the situation. Sally should explore Bob's reasons for rejecting her jurisdiction and what he would need to willingly accept her authority. By focusing on the future, the practitioner (Sally) can help find a way to either reestablish acceptance of the jurisdiction and authority voluntarily or mandate it through either discipline or the involvement of a higher authority. Either way, the model guides the practitioner to help reestablish the legitimacy of the jurisdiction and authority between the two parties. In the case of a “work-to-rule” approach, the difficulty lies in the fact that the worker is technically operating within the boundary, although at its absolute minimum. In other words, the authority is being acknowledged, but the jurisdiction is implicitly being challenged. In Bob's case, the task for Sally is to explore what Bob needs2 in order to fully accept the jurisdiction involved and get back to normal performance.
Respectful behavior in the workplace
Most workplaces have boundaries around respectful behavior, though few are clearly articulated. The practitioner needs to help the parties explore what a reasonable boundary around respectful behavior is, how both would define it and monitor it, and help them agree to implement a new (and clearer) boundary around this issue. To accomplish this, Sally needs to help Diane understand the company harassment policy and ensure that her behavior doesn't breach it.
Sally could also speak to Bob to find out what he wanted to achieve with the harassment complaint and explore options around how else they may be able to address that.
ASSESSING AND APPLYING THE BOUNDARY MODEL
Diagnostically, this model is reasonably deep, meaning it can help diagnose potential causes of conflict in a variety of circumstances. That said, it also restricts its diagnosis to boundary-related issues, meaning that it is limited in its range or scope of diagnosis. That puts this model at medium on the diagnostic scale.
Strategically, it offers clear ideas for intervention, along with key goals for the intervention, both of which can guide a practitioner. It therefore rates high on the strategic scale.
Although the Boundary model is extremely useful in a wide range of conflicts, it probably has its greatest usefulness in relational conflict, conflict in which the parties will continue to interact after the dispute is resolved. An assessment of boundary issues along with a focus on better clarity around boundaries carries an implicit assumption that future interactions are likely. In situations where no future interactions are likely, Boundary model analysis becomes more abstract and less functional or practical for the practitioner.
PRACTITIONER'S WORKSHEET FOR THE BOUNDARY MODEL
- Identify the issues in the conflict, and for each one, identify the boundary that is violated, circumvented, or threatened.
Conflict Issues: Boundary Violated:
- Intervene based on the diagnosis:
Diagnosis: Strategic Intervention: Violation of a boundary due to lack of clarity or differing expectations: Clarify the boundary; discuss the expectations of all parties. Clarify the consequences of boundary violation. Violation of the boundary due to deliberate expansion of its norms: Reestablish and clarify the boundary. Lack of acceptance of jurisdiction: Gain acceptance of the jurisdiction; reestablish legitimacy for the jurisdiction. Bring in higher authority to clarify and define jurisdiction if needed. Negotiate new jurisdiction if appropriate. Lack of acceptance of authority: Gain acceptance of who has authority; reestablish legitimacy for authority. Bring in higher authority to clarify and define authority issues if needed. Enforce boundary if necessary. Negotiate new levels of authority if appropriate.
ADDITIONAL CASE STUDY: BOUNDARY MODEL
Case Study: Mutiny at the Office
The situation involved a small work team, eight staff and a new manager. The new manager was a former colleague of about half of the team, although they hadn't worked together in a few years. The new manager was brought in to replace a manager who had retired and who was very well liked.
About six months after the new manager assumed the role, the team effectively mutinied. They refused to work for the new manager, telling the director that this manager had imposed new rules on them, ignored their knowledge and ability to do the job, treated them like children, and didn't listen to any of their concerns or complaints. They refused to take assignments that they didn't want, didn't make sense to them, or were different from the assignments they were used to. The team believed that the new manager was incompetent and shouldn’t even be a manager, wanted him to be reassigned, and wanted a new manager, ideally someone from the team of eight, appointed.
The manager saw the situation very differently, believing that the departing manager had been popular mainly because he hadn't managed the team, but let them get away with doing whatever they wanted. Work efficiency had been low, there had been conflict within the team over tasks and roles, and there had even been some anonymous complaints that people had been leaving early or coming in late without anything being done about it. What the new manager had done, in his own view, was to simply enforce the rules of the workplace the way they were written.
A mediator was brought in and everyone was interviewed. It became clear that, to a large degree, both parties were right. The new manager was behaving rigidly and didn't spend much time listening to the team members. He was intent on “whipping the team into shape.” In doing so, he had lost the respect of the team. The team was clearly used to doing whatever it wanted, as the previous manager had let the team handle work assignments and job duties on their own, rarely getting involved unless things became truly chaotic. The team was used to making a lot of their own decisions, frequently ending up with solutions that were inefficient but catered to the desires of one or two of the more senior team members.
Boundary model diagnosis and worksheet: Mutiny at the Office
- Identify the issues in the conflict, and for each one, identify the boundary that is violated or threatened.
| Conflict Issues: | Boundary Violated: |
| Refusing to take work assigned by the manager. | Management has a right to assign work, and, providing it is safe and reasonable, it must be done. In this case, the team refused the jurisdiction and authority of the new manager. |
| Manager not listening to team concerns. | There is an implicit boundary that everyone, staff included, has a right to be heard if they have concerns. The manager violated the team's expectations by refusing to listen. |
| Past practices dramatically changed. | The previous manager had a completely different set of boundaries and workplace rules, which this new manager changed unilaterally and without consultation or reasoning to the team, other than, “He was wrong, I'm right.” Because this was not acceptable to the team, they simply rejected this manager's jurisdiction and authority to make those changes. |
| Start and finish times. | The workday has specific boundaries for start and finish times, and these were not being respected. Norms were expanded well beyond the boundary. |
Boundary model strategic direction: Mutiny at the Office
- Based on the preceding diagnosis, the following interventions should be considered.
| Diagnosis: | Strategic Intervention Options: |
| Lack of acceptance of jurisdiction and/or authority: The team, in essence, refused to take work assignments from this manager. |
Bring the director in to speak with the team, and clarify: This manager has both the right and the full authority of the organization to make changes. In fact, this manager was chosen by the director specifically to make major changes and improve the efficiency of this team. |
| Lack of acceptance of jurisdiction and/or authority: The team rejected this manager's legitimacy as a manager. |
The team needs to accept the manager's role, jurisdiction, and authority. To accomplish this, the team has to detail what it reasonably needs from the manager to be comfortable in accepting the manager as their leader. |
| Violation of a boundary due to lack of clarity or differing expectations: Manager not listening to the team, not explaining their reasoning or the direction the team is going in. |
The boundary around the team being listened to, being included in some decision-making, or explanation of decisions needs to be reestablished. A process for getting time with the manager must be agreed upon, along with a process for communicating the new vision and direction the new manager is taking the team in. |
| Violation of a boundary due to expansion of norms: Start and finish times reestablished. |
Management must clarify the boundary around start and finish times, along with the exceptions to this that are acceptable (sickness, etc.). This boundary must be reset, and the norms brought back to the boundary. |
The mediator followed a number of the interventions, including:
- A team meeting with the director, who laid out the mandate this manager had been given, along with clarifying that the previous manager's practices were not acceptable. This helped reset some of the expectations of the team.
- A full team meeting to explore the questions:
- What changes need to be made by the manager for the team to fully accept him as leader?
- What changes need to be made by the team for the manager to feel supported and accepted?
This was at times quite difficult for the manager, as he had to make important changes to his style of leadership. For example, he typically offered little access to his team on a daily basis. To have a meeting with him, team members often had to book time more than a week in advance. As part of the changes, he had to make time on the same day if a team member requested it. In addition, he had to work hard on his listening skills and move away from simply telling the team why he was right, and they were wrong.
The team also had to make changes, agreeing to raise issues directly with the manager rather than complaining among the team.
Epilogue of the case study
All boundary work was documented in the form of a “team charter,” which, after three sessions, was agreed to by the team as a whole. The charter outlined the principles and definitions of all the boundary issues that needed changing. The team then requested two months to pilot the changes and see how they worked.
After two months, seven of the eight staff members were both content and pleased with the changes on the team, with one exception— the eigth team member refused to accept the team charter and continued calling for the manager to be moved or fired. She constantly raised issues about the manager with her peers and refused to deal directly with the manager on those issues as had been agreed to by the team as a whole. In the final team meeting, the other seven team members, citing the changes the manager had made, told this worker that she, not the manager, had become the problem. The eighth team member walked out of the room.
In a separate session, this team member indicated that the manager used to be a personal friend (with some indication that they might have been romantically involved or mutually attracted) but they had had a major falling-out. She indicated that she could not under any circumstances accept that manager as her boss. In other words, she would never accept the authority and jurisdiction of this person regardless of any changes the manager might make.
After discussions with senior management, it was decided by everyone (including the eighth team member and the union) that she would be transferred to a different position under another manager.
NOTES
- 1. Dr. Larry Prevost is a practitioner in the dispute resolution field and developed this model as part of his dissertation for his PhD in Philosophy, “The Core Elements of Reality,” LaSalle University, 1996.
- 2. The practitioner should consider the Triangle model in chapter 5 to help with assessing and working with Bob's interests.