CHAPTER TWELVE
MODEL #9: MOVING BEYOND THE CONFLICT

BACKGROUND OF THE MOVING BEYOND MODEL

The Moving Beyond model has been developed by the author based on the seminal work of Elizabeth Kübler-Ross in her book On Death and Dying.1 This version has been modified to focus on conflict settings as opposed to situations of terminal illness, which was the focus of Kübler-Ross's work. In addition, the model has been reinforced and influenced by the work of William Bridges2 and his approach to helping people work through significant change.

As the Dynamics of Trust model (see Chapter 7) and attribution theory show, it is human nature for each party to a conflict to become hurt and blame the other side, erroneously attribute bad intentions to the other parties, and build up or exaggerate the “wrong” done to them. This can create an enormous barrier to resolution—the inability of a party or parties to let go and move beyond the conflict. It is this “letting go” process that the Moving Beyond model addresses. We ask a great deal of the parties when we practice conflict resolution. We ask parties to take the pain and anger that they have lived with for a long time and to “get over it” in a very short period of time. In some cases, the main reason a conflict doesn't settle or resolve, even when it appears that the resolution meets everyone's substantive interests, is that one or more parties are unable to let the conflict go, to emotionally allow it to be resolved, to reach closure.

Essentially, letting go and moving beyond is a form of grieving. The source and meaning of the word “grieve” is “to carry a heavy burden,” and the process of moving beyond, of reaching an end to the grieving, is to let go of that burden and put it to rest. In conflict situations it is often critical to help the parties explore what letting go of the conflict means, what accepting a resolution looks like. For this reason, Kübler-Ross's process of grieving along with Bridges’s work around transitions are used as the basis for this model.

In Kübler-Ross's view, the grieving process has five steps: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Because depression is a clinical diagnosis, it wasn't useful in this model. Bargaining in Kübler-Ross's model is, arguably, just a form of denial revisited, and in the moving beyond model bargaining is, therefore, wrapped into both the denial and anger stages.

Complementary work done by Bridges looked at the process of change and transition and identified three stages:

  1. an ending, followed by
  2. a period of confusion and distress, followed by
  3. a new beginning.

In Bridges’s view, people can get stuck in either of the first two steps, which will prevent them from finding the new beginning and moving forward.

For the purposes of the Moving Beyond model, Kübler-Ross's and Bridges’s views of reaching closure and moving on overlap enough to fit into the following three steps:

  • Stage One: Denial—Denial, in many ways, is the process of refusing to accept that something has ended, that something has happened to change our life whether we like it or not. We ignore the problem(s), we invent reasons why it has nothing to do with us, and we vehemently deny reality in a bid to hold on to the status quo.
  • Stage Two: Anger—Anger, confusion, and distress are all connected and are all natural reactions to dealing with situations we don't want and don't like.
  • Stage Three: Acceptance—Acceptance fits well with a new beginning. Once we accept that we cannot simply stamp our feet and get everything we want, once we recognize that we need to find the best solution possible given our circumstances and move on, we begin to focus on a new beginning, on life after the conflict is gone.

DIAGNOSIS WITH THE MOVING BEYOND MODEL

Based on this discussion, then, the Moving Beyond model argues that in relation to conflict, these three steps are the three broad stages that people pass through when resolving difficult issues, as shown in Figure 12.1:

Diagram of the Moving Beyond model depicting that in relation to conflict, the three steps - Denial, Anger, Acceptance - are the three broad stages that people pass through when resolving difficult issues.

Figure 12.1 The Moving Beyond model

Stage One: Denial

Denial in the field of conflict resolution typically relates to a party denying and/or refusing to accept the problem, the situation, or their role and contribution to the conflict. This links well to Bridges’s idea of an ending: a relationship has ended, a business deal has gone sour, a person is injured in a car accident and their lifestyle is forever changed, a worker is fired.3 In these situations, refusal to accept the situation causes each party to engage in one or more of the following:

  • Denial of any significant contribution to or responsibility for the problem
  • Denial of even being a party to the conflict or problem (e.g. “I'm not even sure why I'm here….”)
  • Acknowledging they did some small thing wrong but asserting that the other party's wrongdoing dwarfs their own and makes it irrelevant
  • Attributing all blame to the other party and ignoring or minimizing any actions or information that contradict that blame
  • Refusing to accept that this problem will or should change their life in any way, shape, or form
  • Amplifying feelings of loss and attributing the cause solely to the other party, while denying or ignoring any information that contradicts this
  • Making offers to settle with terms that are extremely one sided and carry a negative “attitude,” which means that there is no real attempt at resolution. The “bargaining” in this case is called “false bargaining,” intended only to demonstrate how reasonable the offering party is, and how unreasonable the other party is
  • A complete and total inability to see the issues from the other party’s point of view to even a small degree

From a diagnostic point of view, a party is in denial whenever they are demonstrating some or all of these behaviors.

Stage Two: Anger

Although anger is a familiar part of conflict, what isn't obvious is that anger arrives only once a party begins taking the conflict seriously. When in denial, we live in a world where the conflict really isn't our problem, where the reality of the situation has not sunk in. When it dawns on us that, yes, this is my problem to deal with, that it isn't going away and that it is going to change my life, anger quickly follows. As Kübler-Ross notes:

If our first reaction to catastrophic news is, “No, it's not true, no, it cannot involve me,” this has to give way to a new reaction, when it finally dawns on us: “Oh, yes, it is me, it was not a mistake.”4

When it finally dawns on us that we are a part of the conflict, anger sets in. This phase blends nicely with Bridges’s description of a phase involving “confusion and distress.” The uncertainty and confusion cause fear, and when this is combined with seeing the other party as being at fault for the whole situation, anger is the result.

Anger, of course, can be very difficult to deal with as a practitioner, mainly because anger is a wide-angle scattershot weapon, one that gets applied in many directions indiscriminately. In lawsuits it's common for each party to be angry with the other side, angry with the other side's lawyer, angry with the court system itself, angry with their own lawyer, angry with innocent third parties for not taking sides, and on and on.

Sometimes, a party will begin bargaining with the other side while still in the anger phase, but the offers are frequently what can be colorfully termed “Up yours!” offers. In other words, they are offers intended to insult and demean the other party, not genuine attempts at reaching a resolution. Their goal is to vent their anger on the other party in any way they can.

From a diagnostic point of view, a party is in the anger phase when they are venting, attacking, insulting, or demeaning the other party, or, conversely, refusing to communicate or engage with them in any way. In addition, a significant feature of the anger phase is a party's inability to hear any new information or any information they don't like. In the anger phase, the flow of emotion is one-directional, from within the party out to anyone and anything that is perceived to be part of the problem. Although little responsibility for the conflict has yet to be accepted by a party in anger, the fact that they're angry at all indicates they are taking the issues seriously. When a party moves to the anger phase and out of denial, significant progress is being made.

Stage Three: Acceptance

The third and final stage and the stage practitioners need to help parties move toward is acceptance. Acceptance can mean a variety of things in different situations, including a party:

  • Accepting that they are part of the problem and need to participate in resolving it
  • Accepting that they contributed to the problem in some way
  • Accepting that they want this over with and that they want to move on
  • Accepting that they will not get their way entirely, and that the solution must accommodate everyone
  • Accepting that the other side is perhaps not as “evil” as first thought
  • Accepting that the other side was doing their best, that they had constructive intentions (regardless of how it turned out)
  • Accepting that the conflict can (and possibly should) be over, that closure is within reach

In Bridges’s account, the acceptance phase is called “A New Beginning,” which, again, links nicely to the idea of acceptance. When a party finally accepts that a resolution can be reached, that it's time to move on, they often shift their focus away from the conflict and begin exploring what their life might be like when this conflict is over and done with. They focus on a new beginning, a fresh start, and see themselves finally letting the issue go and getting on with their life.

From a diagnostic point of view, a party is in the acceptance stage when they begin to negotiate in a way that actually tries to solve the problem rather than punish the other side. When a party is willing to acknowledge that their behavior was not perfect and is willing to say this to the other side, it indicates that the party is in an acceptance mode. When blame and fault become less important than getting a resolution, when arguing about “the principles” of a conflict is less important than moving on, this typically indicates the movement toward acceptance.

One of the critical learnings from this model is to understand how parties actually move toward acceptance and new beginnings. Most people tend to avoid confrontation and conflict, and because of this when they hit the anger phase, they are likely to panic and retreat from anger back into denial. Anger, confusion, and distress are difficult for most of us to experience for very long. Denial, on the other hand, is relatively comfortable. “Problem? What problem?” is perhaps the theme for denial. Consequently, when a problem arises and we finally get past denial only to run headlong into anger, a common response is to retreat back to denial. This creates a cycle of denial to anger then back to denial again, a cycle that can keep people frozen in a conflict for a long, long time.

Using the Moving Beyond model, it should be clear to the practitioner that when one or more parties become angry, confused, and distressed, this is actually a good thing5, as it means that the parties are moving in the right direction. Rather than retreat to denial, parties need to be encouraged to continue working through the anger until acceptance is reached.

CASE STUDY: MOVING BEYOND DIAGNOSIS

In the case study, Bob and Sally both start in the denial phase and move through various phases through the process. Diane starts in the anger stage, where she has been stuck for a while. For each of the parties we'll identify and diagnose the phases they were in and the behavior that each phase leads to.

Bob:

Denial: Once the competition took place and the conflict started, Bob entered the denial phase immediately, denying any possibility that Diane was actually more qualified than he was. He dealt with the issue in a rights-based way until this was no longer possible, and when he exhausted all appeals, became even more entrenched in denial. Some of the issues Bob remained in denial about were the following:
  • Fundamentally, Bob was in denial that his employer had the right to change job descriptions and to rearrange the structure of the workplace. Bob simply could not accept this fact when the result was not in his favor.
  • Bob had consistently chosen to do no customer service work and had taken no customer service training. He ignored the fact that he had made this choice, blaming management for it instead.
  • Bob had the competition rerun due to perceived unfairness, but even when the union deemed it fair, he refused to accept it. He was in denial over the fact that the process itself might just have been fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  • Bob denied that his failure had anything to do with himself, believing instead that management was somehow out to get him.
  • Bob refused to accept that the old workplace structure had ended, and he envisioned stonewalling until things were put back to the way they had been since he was hired.
Anger: Bob moved back and forth between denial and anger. Some of the areas where Bob moved into anger included:
  • Bob would “mind his own business,” that is, ignore Diane and refuse to accept her promotion, but as soon as she followed up with him he would lose his temper and lash out at her.
  • Bob would hang around with a few other staff members who disliked Sally and her proposed changes, and the more they talked, the angrier the group got. This would recede into denial when they all went back to work, waiting for another trigger to move again into anger.
  • Bob's uncooperative approach spoke of a deep anger, albeit a passive-aggressive one, that he was willing to risk his job over.
  • Bob displayed both confusion and distress, frequently getting his facts or dates wrong when trying to make a point.
Acceptance: This will be left for the strategic part of the model.

Sally:

Denial: Sally had a difficult mandate—to make changes to long-standing workplace structures with a strong union presence and a long set of traditions. In going about this, Sally was in denial about a few key points:
  • Sally didn't want to recognize the scope of the changes being asked of the staff—she kept saying, “What's the problem? These changes aren't so bad.”
  • Sally denied that her approach was in any way part of the problem. In reality, she was fairly autocratic about the nature of the changes to Bob and Diane's roles, and refused to consider any other options. She did this while maintaining that she was flexible and open to feedback.
  • She continually told Diane that Bob would come around and to just keep trying to be nice to him.
  • Sally didn't recognize that for the staff, an era, in a sense, had ended. They had done things the same way for a very long time, and now a new way of managing the department had arrived. She refused to recognize the significance of the changes being made.
Anger: Sally displayed little anger overtly, although she talked a lot about her “frustration” with Bob, and this frustration was evident in her behavior.
  • She would avoid Bob on many days when she felt that she was too frustrated to be constructive with him.
  • Because she didn't see the changes as all that onerous, she was confused as to why not only Bob, but other staff, were so hostile to what she was trying to implement.
  • She would send curt, pointed e-mails to Bob, directing him back to Diane. Bob read these emails as quite angry in tone.
Acceptance: This will be left for the strategic part of the model.

Diane:

Denial: Diane was in very little denial in this case and had moved directly to anger. In general, she saw how angry Bob was and was equally frustrated with Sally, whom she saw as giving her an impossible task—to give Bob direction when Bob simply refused to work with her as his supervisor.
Anger: Diane was deeply stuck in the anger stage. She was:
  • Angry with Bob for refusing to recognize her new position and for disrespecting and humiliating her in the workplace with his flat-out refusal to listen to her, along with his tendency to completely ignore Diane's presence for days at a time.
  • Angry and confused about why Sally was allowing this to go on and angry at her for implying that if Diane were “nice” enough to Bob he'd get over it and start to listen to her. In addition, she was angry with Sally for not supporting her when she asked that Bob be disciplined.
Acceptance: This will be left for the strategic part of the model.

As we can see, the three parties were stuck at various places in the first two stages of the Moving Beyond model. There had been some negotiating between Sally and Bob during the process, but it was false bargaining. The offers from each were so one sided that they inflamed the situation rather than resolved it. For example, Bob suggested that Sally treat him as if he actually were an AS-1 and keep everything else the same, and they'd worry about the actual classification later. This offer by Bob was completely unacceptable in that it missed the whole point of the changes. In other words, it wasn't a legitimate attempt to resolve the situation; it was a form of Denial on Bob's part. For Sally's part, she suggested that Bob give in and accept everything, and she would promise that no discipline would occur. This offer was nothing short of demanding capitulation, something completely unacceptable to Bob and indicating that Sally was still negotiating from a position of denial or anger. This kind of bargaining or negotiation will typically further entrench the parties rather than move them toward resolution.

Let's take a look at how the Moving Beyond model guides the practitioner toward strategic choices based on the diagnosis.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION FROM THE MOVING BEYOND MODEL

Strategically, the Moving Beyond model gives very broad direction that relies heavily on basic conflict resolution “micro-skills.” The value of the strategic direction the model offers is that it helps practitioners use the appropriate skills at the right time. In terms of strategy, there are two key points.

  • Strategy #1—Help parties move step by step toward acceptance: Each party must move through the process roughly in order, from denial, through anger, and only then to acceptance. Trying to skip a stage or ignore a stage will simply cause the party to stay stuck in that stage. If someone is in denial, trying to go straight on to acceptance rarely helps the party let go of the conflict and move on. If someone is deeply angry, attempting to suppress this anger or suggesting “anger won't help you” may get nicer behavior on the surface (at best) but will not help the party truly move out of anger and start moving beyond the conflict. Staying stuck in denial or anger will tend to produce false bargaining and little movement toward actual resolution.
  • Strategy #2—Apply skills appropriate to each step in the process: Each step of denial, anger, and acceptance in the model requires the application of different skills and interventions; each step needs to be treated differently. Figure 12.2 outlines the different skills and interventions that apply at each step.
Diagram outlining the different skills and interventions that apply at each step of denial, anger, and acceptance in the model that requires the application of different skills and interventions.

Figure 12.2 Skills for each stage of the model

Denial: Strategies for managing the denial stage

The first step is to help get the party out of denial.6 The practitioner needs to focus on the following skills and interventions to accomplish this:

  1. Explore Key Interests: The foundation of managing denial is exploring and probing to learn the party's key interests, their wants, needs, fears, concerns, hopes, etc. Learning about these and understanding which areas the party is in denial about sets the stage for the reality testing to follow. For example, if the party says they want this conflict resolved and yet refuses to engage in any problem-solving behavior, this contradiction can be used to reality test the party later.
  2. Reality Test, BATNA,7 Attributional Retraining:8 Reality testing is the generic term for a number of related approaches, including BATNA exploration and attributional retraining. All of these skills help us gather information about the situation and the party's key interests, then gently expose contradictory behavior, data conflicts, and outcomes that are not desirable if the party continues on the current path. In the case of attributional retraining, it challenges the attributions the party is making, many of which are skewed or incorrect. Although there is a wide range of skills and interventions to choose from in the reality testing arena, the net result has to be challenging the party's assumptions and choices with the goal of helping them assess the situation more clearly. By helping them look where they don't want to look, by gently bringing into focus the parts of the situation that are difficult, the practitioner can help the party to move out of denial. The practitioner, however, should be aware that the next phase is typically anger.
  3. Avoid False Bargaining: There is a tendency for some parties to want to bargain or negotiate while still stuck in denial. Generally speaking, offers made during the denial phase are at best one-sided and at worst can convince the other party that there is no chance of a resolution. Because offers made during the denial stage are not reflective of any real assessment of the situation, they have the potential to inflame the other party further. When one party, who has yet to recognize that they have some contribution or liability in a situation, makes an offer that amounts to “nuisance value,” it can provoke the other party to walk out in order to show them how serious they are. This approach helps no one.

Note that in a very few situations agreements can be reached with people in denial, but only if the desire to remain in denial is strong enough to bring some concessions. The net effect, though, is to allow the party to remain in denial about the main issues, which may mean that the resolution will not last. For example, suppose that in a family business setting the father (and CEO) is in denial that his daughter is not interested in running the family business and wants to leave. The father, in denial about what his daughter really wants in her life, may offer a large raise to keep her in the company. This strategy may work in the short term in that the daughter may agree to stay, but if she stays out of guilt or just to save money for what she really wants to do, all they've done is delay finding a real solution. Both the father and the daughter have retreated to denial and will soon find that the problem is still there.

The goal in dealing with denial, essentially, is to help the party move past and out of denial. The next stop will be anger.

Anger: Strategies for managing the anger stage

When a party is in the anger stage, the process must be handled carefully. Anger is not a problem to be solved, nor something to be ignored or suppressed. Simply focusing on facts and data will do little to help a party move forward. Anger is an emotion that needs to be worked through and processed as respectfully as possible. The practitioner should focus on the following:

  1. Listen: Actively listening to someone who is angry is one of the most effective ways to defuse the anger. Many times, the need to be heard is underlying a great deal of anger. Allow and encourage parties to express and work through their anger.
  2. Focus on Emotional Interests by Acknowledging and Validating:9 Feelings are legitimate, even if the reasoning behind them might not be. Acknowledge and validate the feelings, without pronouncing the party “right” on the issues. Take the feelings seriously, and reserve the reality testing and the problem solving for the denial and acceptance stages.
  3. Ask Questions: Asking a good question indicates respect and concern, both of which are in short supply to the angry person.10
  4. Reframe: Anger brings out the most extreme thoughts and feelings. Reframing retains the important interest and objective of the angry party while changing the context of the issue in a way that helps move it toward problem solving.
  5. Refocus to Key Interests: As the anger starts to subside, start to refocus the party onto his or her important interests.
  6. Avoid False Bargaining: When angry, parties sometimes throw out offers to resolve the conflict, but offers made out of frustration will tend to insult or demean the other party. Offers to settle made in anger tend to be more an expression of the anger rather than a genuine offer to settle. Focus back on the feelings, and defer settlement discussions to the acceptance stage.

One of the worst steps to take in the anger phase is to attempt reality testing or problem solving. No matter how effectively done, it will almost always inflame the anger even more. Anger must be processed and moved through; acceptance is the stage where most resolutions will take place.

Acceptance: Strategies for managing the acceptance stage

When a party hits the acceptance stage, they not only are ready to let the conflict go and move on, they are often eager to. This doesn't mean the party won't negotiate hard or hold out until their important interests are met, but it does mean that they are ready to negotiate in good faith, listen to what the other party wants without as much anger, and stay focused on reaching a resolution. In the acceptance stage, all the skills surrounding effective problem solving apply, including:

  1. Focusing on Key Substantive and Process Interests:11 This is the stage where the result, along with the process, is important. Keep a strong focus on the parties' interests, especially the substantive and procedural ones. The emotional interests (it is hoped) were largely addressed in the anger stage.
  2. Brainstorming: Brainstorming is a key tool for effective problem solving and should be used liberally.
  3. Mutual Problem Statements: Mutual problem statements are a type of brainstorming that can help develop solutions that have a reasonable chance of working for both parties.
  4. Building the “Post Conflict” Vision: Good conflict resolution focuses the parties on the future, and the acceptance stage is where this will be effective. Trying to bring a future focus in the anger stage, for example, paints the picture of the person being angry for a long time to come, which obviously won't help with resolution. In the acceptance stage, help the parties think about what their world will look and feel like when this conflict over. This creates a positive motivation for resolution.
  5. Exploring Key Needs to “Let It Go”: Key questions, such as “What will you need to let this whole situation go and move on?” can be very powerful when asked during the acceptance stage.
  6. True Negotiation and Resolution: Negotiations in the acceptance stage will be focused on actually resolving the problems, unlike in the previous two stages. In this stage, parties will listen to and hear what the other party needs and will try to meet some of it. Any consideration of what the other party needs would be out of the question in either of the first two stages.

When a party arrives at the acceptance stage, it doesn't mean they will stay there forever. Many things can happen that may throw them back into anger or even denial, and the practitioner must use the skills listed to work with each party at whatever stage they move into. By applying the appropriate skills in each of the stages, the practitioner can keep the parties moving through the model in the overall direction of acceptance.

CASE STUDY: STRATEGIC DIRECTION WITH THE MOVING BEYOND MODEL

Strategically, the Moving Beyond model can be very helpful in understanding how parties move from being stuck in denial or anger to reaching some level of acceptance and, ultimately, resolution. In our case study, for example, arguing with Bob and forcing him to change his perspective while he remained in denial, as Sally had been doing, simply didn't work. Instead, it reinforced and strengthened the level of denial. Similarly, addressing Bob or Sally's anger through argument and accusation only caused defensiveness and kept them stuck in a denial-to-anger cycle that never reached or approached acceptance.

Some possible approaches a practitioner could use in applying the Moving Beyond model strategies to our case study follow.

Bob, when asked a number of these questions, will have a hard time remaining in denial as he reflects on the issues these questions raise. At some point the nature and focus of the questions will get Bob out of denial, likely opening up the feelings and emotions he's been going through in this situation.

Working through the anger stage can take a few minutes, a few hours, or even days, depending on a number of factors, including the depth of the relationships the conflict relates to, their importance to the parties, the attributions being made, and many more. Bob needed help to work through his emotions without being asked for a solution.

By applying different approaches at each stage, the practitioner can help Bob get out of denial, process the anger, and move toward constructive solutions and acceptance.

With these reality-testing questions, Sally might start to see that at the end of the day, she needs to make this work. This will likely bring out the frustration she's been feeling.

By applying different approaches at each stage, the practitioner can help Sally recognize some of the issues she had been ignoring (denial), process the anger, and move toward constructive solutions and acceptance.

Diane: Dealing with anger

Diane, you will recall, is not in a lot of denial—she's stuck in the anger stage, feeling helpless and unable to solve the problem. We'll move right to the anger stage with Diane.

By helping Diane work through her anger, and by focusing her forward to the acceptance stage, there is a good chance the past can be left behind in favor of a better future.

ASSESSING AND APPLYING THE MOVING BEYOND MODEL

From a diagnostic point of view, the Moving Beyond model is fairly high level, identifying a broad pattern people go through in trying to move past a conflict and let it go. It allows practitioners to identify and see exactly where people get stuck in a conflict, becoming unable to let it go or resolve it. By helping practitioners assess this, it rates high on the diagnostic scale.

From a strategic point of view the model is more general, relying on well-tested and well-established communication skills to help parties move through the stages. That said, the stages themselves serve as an invaluable road map for the practitioner to identify the barriers to settlement, and to then apply the appropriate skills in the right stage to help the parties let go of the conflict and move beyond it. For this reason it rates medium-high on the strategic scale.

PRACTITIONER'S WORKSHEET FOR THE MOVING BEYOND MODEL

Denial:

What are the parties in denial about? Where are they stuck?
  • Party A:
 Reality-Testing Questions for Party A:
  • Party B:
What are the parties' key interests?
  • Party A:
 Reality-Testing Questions for Party B:
  • Party B:

Anger to Acceptance:

ADDITIONAL CASE STUDY—MOVING BEYOND MODEL

Case Study: Workplace Assault

An employee, Sheila, worked at a senior citizens home for about two years and was terminated for an incident involving another employee, Helen. Sheila and Helen had taken an immediate dislike to each other and coped with it by simply ignoring each other. A new supervisor had taken over the area, and the supervisor and Helen became close friends. Over the year that followed, Helen and Sheila started to have frequent clashes in the workplace. The supervisor simply told both of them to behave.

One day, Sheila came in late to work. The supervisor listened to Sheila's explanation of problems in her personal life (her husband had moved out on the weekend, leaving her alone with their child) but still gave her a written warning about being late. This upset Sheila. Later that day in the staff room Helen apparently taunted Sheila about the discipline and the problems she was having at home. Sheila became enraged and attacked Helen, squeezing her throat until she couldn't breathe. Coworkers pulled Sheila off Helen. Sheila was sent home and terminated the next day. No discipline was given to Helen. Sheila sued the employer for wrongful dismissal.

At mediation, Sheila downplayed the attack and claimed that the three witnesses were Helen's friends and talked a great deal about Helen receiving no discipline for instigating the fight. The employer ignored the lack of progressive discipline in the case and downplayed the supervisor's not having addressed past incidents between Sheila and Helen, focusing on the company's written policy that any aggressive acts of a physical nature would result in immediate termination.

In caucus, Sheila was demanding $50,000 even though her own lawyer kept telling her that the most she could get was three months' salary, a total of $9,000—and that this would happen only if they won, which was not likely. Sheila would not listen.

In caucus, the employer was refusing to pay anything, stating that their policy absolved them of any liability. Their lawyer told them they definitely had risk, but the employer refused to pay any money to an employee who had engaged in physical violence.

Moving Beyond model diagnosis and worksheet: Workplace Assault

Denial:

Anger to Acceptance:

Moving Beyond model strategic direction: Workplace Assault

Based on the diagnosis and identification of the areas of denial and anger, the practitioner focused on moving them out of denial using some of the following reality-testing questions:

After reality testing to get them out of denial, the practitioner used listening, acknowledging, and further questioning to help them process their anger. Once both parties were heading for acceptance, good problem-solving skills helped them come to a resolution.

Epilogue of the case study

Initially, Sheila's only offer to settle was $50,000, and the employer countered with zero.

After the mediator caucused and reality tested along the lines of the analysis, Sheila finally began to move out of denial and understand that even though she was provoked, she shouldn't have attacked Helen. She also got past her anger at the company and focused on her immediate need for money, and to get any help that the employer would offer in assisting her in finding a new job. She revised her offer to three months' salary, about $9,000.

The mediator reality tested the employer, and after working through the denial that they owed Sheila anything, and the anger that this incident took place at all, the employer accepted that if Helen had provoked the fight, they needed to address that. Because they hadn't investigated the incident properly, their dismissal might not be upheld in court. They refused to consider reinstatement but revised their offer from zero to $4,500 (1.5 months' salary), plus a letter of reference, which they offered to write because Sheila, with the exception of this incident, had been an excellent worker. Sheila asked for two months’, ($6,000) and the letter, and they settled on $5,500, plus the letter. Both parties left feeling that this was a very unfortunate incident, but were prepared to move on.

NOTES

  1. 1.  Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, On Death and Dying (New York: Scribner, 1969).
  2. 2.  William Bridges, Transitions: Making Sense of Life's Changes (New York: Addison Wesley, 1980).
  3. 3.  Notice how denial often centers around loss—see Chapter 9, the Loss Aversion Bias, for a deeper look at how we behave when dealing with such losses.
  4. 4.  Kübler-Ross, p. 63.
  5. 5.  Within reason, of course. This is not a suggestion that rage potentially leading to violence is a “normal” part of the resolution process and needs to be accepted. Practitioners must make good judgments about the level of anger they are dealing with and act accordingly. The message here is simply that when parties get angry, it's an important sign of movement toward taking the issues seriously and, because of this, toward resolution.
  6. 6.  It should be noted that when dealing with denial, it is not the practitioner's job to force someone out of their denial, as people sometimes stay in denial because they simply cannot handle the anger or the level of change needed. As practitioners, we should help them explore the stage of denial, help them look at acceptance and what it would take. Ultimately, it must be up to the parties themselves if they want to let go and move beyond the conflict.
  7. 7.  BATNA is an acronym for Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. This is one of the principles of Interest-Based Negotiation from Roger Fisher and Bill Ury at the Harvard Project on Negotiation.
  8. 8.  This is a specific approach to reality testing from the Dynamics of Trust model, Chapter 7.
  9. 9.  See the Triangle of Satisfaction model, Chapter 5, for an in-depth look at strategies for the different types of interests, specifically emotional/psychological interests.
  10. 10. For in-depth strategies on questioning skills, see Furlong and Harrison's recent book, BrainFishing: A Practice Guide to Questioning Skills (Friesen Press, 2018).
  11. 11. See the Triangle of Satisfaction model in chapter 5 for an in-depth look at strategies for all the different types of interests.
  12. 12. Face-to-face skills such as active listening rarely translate well on the page. The acknowledgments listed are just indications of the direction taken, not a representation of the best wording or style for these skills.
  13. 13. At this point, refer to Chapter 5, the Triangle of Satisfaction model, for an in-depth look at how to most effectively access and use the three different types of interests Bob has: the result Bob is looking for, the process to best get there, and what Bob needs to feel good about accepting a resolution.
  14. 14. Face-to-face skills such as active listening rarely translate well on the page. The acknowledgments listed are just indications of the direction taken, not a representation of the best wording or style for these skills.
  15. 15. At this point, refer to Chapter 5, the Triangle of Satisfaction model, for an in-depth look at how to most effectively access and use three different types of interests Sally has: the result Sally is looking for, the process to best get there, and what Sally needs to feel good about accepting a resolution.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.17.174.239