Conflict Resolution: Have You Tried Agreement Management?
By Fred Feitler
Conflict is everywhere and endemic in our lives and society. We encounter it individually, in pairs, small groups, organizations, families, work places and within and between nations, as well as within ourselves (often called internal conflict or values conflict), as well as with others (generally called interpersonal conflict).
I began examining the underlying nature of conflict while working with New York Yearly Meeting’s Police-Community Conflict Program in the 1960s. Using Rachael Davis DuBois’s Group Conversation technique helped polarized groups establish significant positive dialogue if, at first, a level of “agreement” could be established.
Agreement Management (AM) is a conceptually grounded process and set of techniques that hold great promise for reducing conflict and limiting harmful and hurtful consequences of engaging in frequently used “win-lose” approaches to managing conflict. AM is a dynamic social psychological process based on a search for agreement as a requisite for understanding and managing areas of disagreement and conflict. This is contrasted with widely accepted approaches referred to as conflict resolution or Disagreement Management.
A Conflict Situation and Diagnosis
At the invitation of an elementary principal in a medium sized elementary school in upstate New York, I am in an “L-shaped” single story building, trying to understand problems that precipitated the principal’s invitation to address issues of conflict in the school. Reportedly these included teachers not working together, communication issues, and having conflicting value and pedagogical practice differences. I had been promised cooperation and one day for staff development, if needed; and I conducted one-on-one interviews with several teachers with representative viewpoints to gather information. Even more important, these interviews allowed me, the outsider, to become a credible person worthy of their trust in a future intervention.
The interviews revealed what appeared to be a relationship between the physical layout of the school and conflicts discussed. The office and entrance to the building were at the corner of the “L” shaped building. The hallway to the right contained grades 4—6, and to the left were grades K—3. K—3 teachers were relatively young, with fewer than ten years of teaching, while those working with older students had taught for twenty or more years. Grade teachers stayed with their grade level groupings. Younger students were described, by older teachers, as being out of control, noisy, and often disruptive. Older students were described by K—3 teachers as being overly regimented and lacking spontaneity and enthusiasm.
The Intervention
Teachers gathered and, not unexpectedly, were sitting with grade level peers. They were asked to meet with a member of the other grade level grouping and conduct an interview. Each would discover and report on a talent, outside teaching, and the other’s perceived teaching strength. They introduced this peer to the entire group. Notes were taken on newsprint to provide a visual database of similar and different talents, interests, and perceptions. Similarities between the two groups were noted.
Then participants returned to their two homogeneous grade level groups and responded to three questions: What are our group’s values? What do we think the other group’s values are? What are our primary educational goals? These questions along with written responses were placed on four identical sets of newsprint.
Then participants were divided into four heterogeneous groups of six to eight people. The newsprint sheets were paired and posted for viewing in each group. Discussion, clarification, and clarity of meaning were permitted for each entry. After each entry was discussed, the group placed that item on either a “We agree with this” or a “We disagree with this” newsprint sheet. Teachers were advised that, even if only one person was in disagreement with an item the group as a whole was experiencing a disagreement. Similarly, if all persons either agreed or disagreed, the item was placed on the “We Agree” sheet. Arguing or heatedly disagreeing with another person was not permitted. If such a situation were to arise, the item belonged on the “Disagree” sheet. If changing a word or short phrase was a sticking point, the item could be altered, if all would then either agree or disagree, but not if this required more than one to two minutes of discussion.
The “We Agree” and “We Disagree sheets” were shared with the entire group and reports were made about the process, results, and the affect generated.
Results
Surprisingly, this process produced a common understanding of values, beliefs, and desired outcomes for students that teachers had not previously known they shared. What were assumed to be contradictory views were really not conflicting; in fact, similar values and goals were commonly shared among teachers from both wings of the building. The lists were primarily of “agreed upon” items with few “disagreed upon” statements. Further discussion of process revealed assumptions of “difference,” misunderstood generalizations, semantics and terminology were the bases for misunderstood assumptions about the “other” group.
From this Agreement Management activity teachers began to communicate openly with other teachers, discuss and work together on curriculum issues, and develop common expectations about student behavior. The perceptions of differences and conflict disappeared.
Why does Agreement Management work?
In nearly all conflict situations involving more than one person, the traditional (social psychological) approach to attempted management is “Win-Lose” or often “Lose-Lose.” The individual response for one or both parties is “emotional.” Emotionality can lead to anger and irrational behavior, both verbal and nonverbal. Although our minds tell us being calm and rational is the way to deal with irrational/emotional behavior, our experience leads us to conclude being calm and rational in the face of irrationality is seen as weak and irritating, thus increasing the emotionality of irrational parties. “Agreement Management” reduces emotional behavior and substitutes non-emotional problem solving, while embracing disagreement as an acceptable condition.
Fred Feitler is a member and former clerk of Kent Friends Meeting in Ohio, of Lake Erie Yearly Meeting. He has served as clerk of FGC committees and is Professor Emeritus and former Director of the Kent State University Graduate Organization Development Program. His nature photographs have been exhibited in several venues.
