resolving_issues_with_your_boss

04/27/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 17):

Strategies vs. Tactics vs. Tools

Summary of Part 16B

Part 16B was the second of two parts exploring Principled Negotiation, specifically the approach of integrating the Fisher-Ury strategy with Neil Rackham’s SPIN Selling strategy. The proposed synthesized model integrates these approaches into a comprehensive four-phases: analysis, planning, discussion, and agreement processes. This integrated method transforms negotiation from a confrontational interaction to a collaborative problem-solving experience. By combining strategic questioning with a principled framework, negotiators can navigate complex interactions more effectively, build trust, and create sustainable agreements that address the genuine needs of all involved parties.

Introduction

Conflict resolution draws from a variety of frameworks and methods to foster understanding, cooperation, and long-term solutions. However, strategies and tactics within conflict resolution are often misidentified, leading to confusion in their application. Understanding the difference between the two is essential, as it shapes how conflicts are approached and resolved.

At various points in this series, I have made the distinction between conflict resolution strategies and conflict resolution tactics. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of mislabeling that has occurred during the past four decades, where tactics and strategic goals have been misidentified as strategies. No conversation on conflict resolution or tension-reduction can proceed without an accurate and systematic appreciation of the two.

Understanding Conflict Resolution Strategies, Tactics, and Tools

Strategies are overarching frameworks that guide conflict resolution, defining long-term objectives and principles. Conversely, tactics are specific strategies used to influence or resolve disputes. They are short-term, situational, and action-oriented. A Conflict Resolution tool, on the other hand, is a resource, framework, or structured methodology that supports conflict resolution efforts. Tools are often analytical, diagnostic, or procedural, providing a means to implement tactics or strategies more effectively. Tools do not resolve conflicts independently but aid practitioners in applying tactics and strategies systematically.

Several commonly cited conflict resolution methods, such as facilitated dialogue, conflict resolution training, and restorative justice, are often mislabeled as strategies when they are, in fact, tactical approaches. This distinction is crucial to ensuring that conflict resolution efforts are applied effectively.

Facilitated Dialogue

Facilitated dialogue fosters open communication and mutual understanding in various settings, from corporate negotiations to international peace efforts. It is best classified as a tactic because it is a short-term intervention within a broader conflict resolution strategy. The facilitator guides discussions constructively, ensuring all parties are heard while maintaining control over the process.

However, when viewed through the lens of strategy versus tactics, facilitated dialogue is more accurately classified as a tactic. This is because it is not an overarching framework for conflict resolution but rather a means to an end. It is used to advance the goals of a larger strategic approach, whether that be reconciliation, policy change, or organizational improvement.

The Contact Hypothesis

The Contact Hypothesis suggests that positive interactions between conflicting groups can reduce prejudice. While this theory appears strategic, it does not always succeed in practice. Poorly managed contact can intensify conflict rather than resolve it. The hypothesis requires careful implementation to prevent unintended consequences.

In settings with deep-rooted animosities, forced or poorly managed contact can often escalate conflict rather than resolution. This paradox highlights why the Contact Hypothesis is best viewed not as a universal strategy but as a theoretical framework that requires careful implementation.

Building Intergroup Bridges

Intergroup bridge-building seeks to establish cooperation between conflicting groups, often through shared goals. This approach aligns with strategies like GRIT (Graduated Reciprocal Tension-Reduction) or Superordinate Goals. GRIT reduces tensions through reciprocal conciliatory gestures, while Superordinate Goals encourage collaboration. Though these methods contribute to long-term conflict reduction, they use tactical steps to implement effectively.

Conflict Resolution Training

Conflict resolution training equips individuals and organizations with essential skills like active listening, negotiation, and mediation. While training supports the broader goal of sustainable conflict resolution, it is itself a tactical tool rather than a strategy.

These skills are directly applied to real-world scenarios, making the training itself a tactical tool that serves the strategic objective of conflict resolution. Training alone does not resolve conflicts but enhances the effectiveness of those engaged in strategic conflict resolution efforts.

Grassroots Initiatives

Grassroots initiatives rely on local communities to address disputes and promote social change. While they contribute to larger strategic goals, such as social cohesion and systemic reform, the specific actions—community meetings, mediation, and advocacy—are tactical interventions aimed at resolving particular conflicts.

People Skills

Effective conflict resolution depends on interpersonal skills such as empathy, persuasion, and negotiation. These skills support various resolution methods but do not constitute a strategy. They are essential tactical tools that enhance broader strategic efforts.

Being a strong communicator includes knowing when to assert boundaries, push back against unfair demands, and hold firm on critical issues without escalating conflict unnecessarily. These interpersonal skills serve as tactical elements that support broader conflict management and resolution strategies.

Journey Mapping

Journey Mapping involves visually or narratively tracking individuals' steps and emotional experiences in a conflict. It helps practitioners analyze dynamics and escalation points. While it provides valuable insights, it remains a tactical tool that informs strategic conflict resolution efforts rather than serving as a standalone strategy.

It helps mediators, managers, or facilitators analyze conflict dynamics, identify escalation points, and uncover underlying interests. By mapping out each participant's experience and reactions, journey mapping provides an evidence-based approach to refining conflict resolution tactics.

Ombuds (Ombudsman)

While the role can be traced back to various ancient societies, in its modern sense began in Sweden in the early 19^th Century. Within the modern workforce, an Ombudsman serves as an informal conflict mediator within an organization, offering a confidential avenue for resolving disputes. Although the role contributes to overall conflict management, it is a tactical intervention rather than a strategic approach. Transparency and adherence to ethical standards help maintain neutrality, ensuring that the Ombudsman remains an effective conflict resolution resource.

Factors such as salary, career progression, and the prevailing organizational culture can influence their perceptions and decisions, potentially introducing unconscious biases. Despite this, when properly structured, the Ombudsman can be an effective means of de-escalating disputes and guiding parties toward resolution.

Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice seeks to repair harm through dialogue involving offenders, victims, and communities. It de-escalates conflict and promotes reconciliation. While it plays a significant role in conflict resolution, it is a tactical intervention used within broader peacebuilding strategies rather than a strategy itself.

For example, a community organization might employ Restorative Justice circles as a tactic within its larger strategy to reduce violence and promote social cohesion. Similarly, a business may utilize restorative practices to address specific workplace conflicts, serving a larger strategy to improve employee relations.

Collaborative Law

Collaborative Law aims to resolve legal disputes without litigation, fostering cooperation and mutual problem-solving. Though useful in minimizing adversarial conflict, it is a tactic rather than a comprehensive strategy for conflict resolution.

In Collaborative Law, the legal professionals act not as combative litigators but as facilitators of a cooperative negotiation process. This distinction makes Collaborative Law a key tactical method within a larger strategic framework for legal dispute resolution.

Conclusion

Understanding the distinction between strategy and tactic is essential for effective conflict resolution. Many commonly used methods—such as facilitated dialogue, restorative justice, and collaborative law—are tactical interventions rather than standalone strategies. Clarifying these distinctions ensures more effective application of conflict resolution tools, leading to sustainable solutions and improved outcomes.

By clarifying these distinctions, we gain a more accurate understanding of how various conflict resolution tools function. This understanding allows practitioners to apply the right tactics within a coherent strategic framework, ensuring that conflict resolution efforts are both effective and sustainable.

* Note: A pdf copy of this article can be found at:

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part17.pdf

Reference

Behfar, K., Peterson, R., Mannix, E., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170–188.

Kato, Y. (2023). Categorical approach to conflict resolution: Integrating category theory into the graph model for conflict resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01955. Retrieved 03/12/2025 from arxiv.org.

Lowry, M. (2013). Conflict management: Difficult conversations with difficult people. The Permanente Journal, 17(1), 74–77.

Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary. (2024). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Rees, C., & Shepherd, M. (2023). Conflict resolution styles and skills and variation among medical students. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 1-10.

Wang, N., & Wu, G. (2020). A systematic approach to effective conflict management for program. SAGE Open, 10(3), 2158244020950346.

Wolford, S. (2020). Conflict management and peace science. Wikipedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org

While listening to an audiobook on the Medici by Paul Strathern, I was presented with a historical citation that I knew to be incredibly inaccurate. In a chapter entitled, "Godfathers of the Scientific Renaissance". discussing the apocryphal tale of Galileo's experiment conducted from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the author cites Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 flight to the Moon with its memorable modern recreation, using a hammer and a feather.

Attributing this famous experiment to Armstrong on Apollo 11 is incorrect. It occurred on August 2, 1971, at the end of the last EVA of Apollo 15, presented by Astronaut Dave Scott. To press the point further, Scott used a feather from a very specific species: a falcon's feather. This small piece of trivia is memorable since Scott accompanied by crew member Al Worden arrived on the Lunar surface using the Lunar Module christened, "Falcon".

In an instant, the author's faux pas – for me -- undercut the book's entire validity. In an instant, it soured my listening enjoyment.

Mr. Strathern is approximately a decade my senior. As a well-published writer and historian, it is presumed that he subscribes to the professional standards of careful research and accuracy. Given this well-documented piece of historical modern trivia, I cannot fathom how he got it so wrong. Moreover, I cannot figure out how such an egregious error managed to go unscathed through what I assumed was a standard professional proofreading and editing process.

If the author and the publisher’s many editorial staff had got this single incontrovertible event from recent history wrong, what other counterfactual information did the book contain?

What is interesting to me, is my own reaction or -- judging from this narrative – some might say, my over-reaction to a fairly common occurrence. Why was I so angry? Why could I not just shake it off with a philosophical, ironic shake of the head?

And that is the point: accidental misinformation, spin and out-and-out propaganda -- and the never-ending stream of lies, damned lies, and unconfirmed statistics whose actual methodology is either shrouded or not even attempted -- are our daily fare. At some point, it is just too much to suffer in silence.

I have had enough of it.

God knows I do not claim to be a paragon of virtue. I told lies as a child, to gloss over personal embarrassments, though I quickly learned that I am not particularly good at deception. I do not like it when others try to deceive me. I take personal and professional pride in being honest about myself and my actions.

Do I make mistakes and misjudgments personally and professionally? Of course, I do. We all do. Have I done things for which I am ashamed? Absolutely. Where I have made missteps in my life, I have taken responsibility for my actions, and have apologized for my actions, or tried to explain them if I have the opportunity to do so.

For all of these thoughtless self-centered acts, I can only move forward. There is nothing I can do about now except to try to do grow and be a better human being in all aspects of my life. That's all any of us can do. I try to treat others as I wish to be treated: with honesty and openness about my personal and private needs, and when I am able to accommodate the wants and needs of those who have entered the orbit of my life.

We all have a point of view. Given the realities of human psychology and peer pressures to conform, it is not surprising that I or anyone else would surrender something heartfelt without some sort of struggle. However, we have a responsibility to others -- and to ourselves -- to not fabricate a narrative designed to misinform, or manipulate others.

Lying is a crime of greed, only occasionally punished when uncovered in a court of law
I am sick to death with liars, “alternative facts” in all their varied plumages and their all too convenient camouflage of excuses and rationales. While I am nowhere close to removing this class of humans from impacting my life, I think it is well past the time to start speaking out loud about our out-of-control culture of pathological untruthfulness openly.

Lying about things that matter -- in all its many forms, both overt and covert -- is unacceptable. When does lying matter? When you are choosing to put your self-interest above someone else’s through deceit.

Some might call me a "sucker" or "hopelessly naive". I believe that I am neither. Our species - as with all living things -- is caught in a cycle of both competition and cooperation
We both compete and cooperate to survive.

There is a sardonic observation, “It’s all about mind over matter. If I no longer mind, it no longer matters”. This precisely captures the issue that we all must face: the people who disdainfully lie to us – and there are many – no longer mind. We – the collective society of humanity no longer matter, if for them we ever did.

We are long past the time when we all must demand a new birth of social norms. We all have the responsibility to maintain them and enforce them in our own day-to-day lives. Without maintaining the basic social norms of honesty and treating others as you wish to be treated in return, how can any form of human trust take place?