resolving_issues_with_your_boss

03/02/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 13A):

Superordinate Goals

Summary of Part 12B

Part 12B was the second of the two-part examination of the conflict resolution strategy of Controlled Communication. Part 12B examined Superordinate Goals as an effective conflict resolution strategy in the workplace, particularly in the absence of a third-party facilitator. It discussed the benefits and challenges of the approach, introduces the round-robin method for structured dialogue, and provides practical examples. The focus of the strategy and its round-robin approach is on fostering fairness, understanding, and collaboration to address workplace disputes and reach equitable resolutions.

Two scenarios were explored, demonstrating how the strategy implementation might proceed for either party.

Introduction

This is the first of two parts addressing Superordinate Goals.

The American Psychological Association (APA) defines superordinate goals as “a goal that can be attained only if the members of two or more groups work together by pooling their skills, efforts, and resources” (APA, 2018).

The core idea behind this strategy is to identify opportunities that—if only temporarily—transcend separate group identities and encourage coordinated action to achieve a shared goal or value. The strategy assumes that conflict arises from competition over actual or perceived scarcity of resources, such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Superordinate goals can take many forms and emerge in a variety of circumstances. Depending on the nature of the conflict, implementing a superordinate goal strategy to resolve disputes or reduce tension may arise naturally during negotiations, where a shared opportunity is identified, and a cooperative effort is initiated. Alternatively, it could be the next step in a Controlled Communications effort. In a business context, it may manifest as a formal teaming arrangement in which parties leverage their respective capabilities to produce a product or service that neither could achieve alone.

In its most extreme form, it is evidenced in times of war. For example, the cooperation between the Kuomintang and the Chinees Red Army against the Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese War that lasted from 1937-1945. This cooperation was formally cemented in the Second United Front of 1937, where both factions agreed to work together, though it was often fraught with tension and mistrust. Nonetheless, the primary goal of resisting Japanese occupation was seen as paramount, allowing them to set aside their differences, at least in the short term.

Superordinate Goals Origins

Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif proposed the idea of superordinate goals in his experiments on intergroup relations, conducted in the 1940s and 1950s, as a means of reducing conflict between competing groups. The most well-known of these studies was the Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1988).

Like Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment (1989), the Robbers Cave experiment was part of a broader post–World War II effort by experimental psychologists to understand human behavior. In Milgram’s case, the focus was on understanding how ordinary people could be led to participate in and collude with brutality and violence. For Sherif, the goal was to explore ways to counteract the power of dysfunctional group behavior.

Both studies have been widely criticized on ethical grounds for their treatment of human subjects—particularly Sherif’s use of children as participants without parental consent.

In her book, "The Lost Boys," Gina Perry (2018) investigates the circumstances under which the experiment was conducted. Using all of the experiment's papers, films, and recordings, donated by the Sherif family to the Archives of the History of American Psychology in Akron, Ohio, as well as interviews with surviving support researchers and now adult participants, Perry builds a strong critique of Sherif's ethical lapses from inception, administration, and reporting.

Perry and others have also criticized Sherif’s experiment based on significant methodological issues: 1). the researchers' active intervention, influencing the boys' behavior rather than simply observing it; 2). the small sample size, limiting generalizability; and 3). the lack of long-term follow-up to assess the experiment's lasting psychological impact. Perry also highlights how the researchers selectively presented data to support their pre-conceived conclusions about intergroup conflict, overlooking contradictory evidence. Ultimately, the book questions the ethical implications of such research.

I, however, do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Although the Robbers Cave study had undeniable ethical and methodological problems, the use of strategy to reduce conflict has proven effective in various contexts. Particularly when it is paired with other conflict resolution strategies.

Below are some examples of disputes where Superordinate Goals have been successfully used:

Regional & International Conflicts

The negotiations that ended apartheid in South Africa were based on a superordinate goal of national reconciliation. Both black and white South Africans worked together to create a democratic government, leading to the peaceful transition from apartheid to a multiracial democracy.

While they are generally treated as separate efforts — viewed within the context of the broader objective of achieving peace and stability in the Balkans after the brutal conflicts of the 1990s — both the Dayton Accords and the European Union's mediation efforts were components of a larger strategy aimed at ending ethnic conflict, rebuilding the region, and integrating it into the broader European political and economic systems.

The Dayton Accords established a peace agreement and a framework for governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and addressed immediate, on-the-ground conflict resolution. The efforts of the European Union, played a longer-term role in ensuring stability, facilitating post-war reconstruction, and encouraging political and economic reforms that would help integrate the Balkans into Europe.

On another front, the African Union’s efforts to mediate the Darfur conflict in Sudan demonstrated the use of a superordinate goal of regional peace and security. Despite challenges, the African Union facilitated peace agreements and sent peacekeeping forces to the region to mitigate violence.

Though widely criticized by some, the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 established diplomatic agreement between Iran and six world powers, the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany, focused on the superordinate goal of preventing nuclear proliferation. In exchange for lifting sanctions, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear activities, which helped ease regional tensions.

Southeast Asian nations utilize the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to address security challenges, focusing on the superordinate goal of regional stability and peace. The ARF brings together countries with different interests, such as China, Japan, and the United States, to promote dialogue and cooperation.

Business Disputes

In response to workplace tensions over compensation and workload during the 2000s, Hewlett-Packard (HP) adopted a superordinate goal of enhancing company culture and productivity. This resulted in the implementation of flexible work hours, better employee benefits, and increased transparency in decision-making processes (Carucci, 2014).

Starting in the 2000s, Zappos embraced a culture of collaboration and open communication, using the superordinate goal of customer satisfaction and company growth to resolve internal disputes. This approach helped improve employee relations and fostered a positive organizational culture (Hsieh, 2010).

The 2006 merger between Disney and Pixar was driven by a superordinate goal of maintaining creative innovation while increasing market share in the animation industry. By focusing on mutual benefits rather than individual company goals, both sides successfully integrated their operations (Helft, 2006).

In 2007 Ford Motor Company and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union negotiated a contract focusing on the superordinate goal of ensuring the company’s financial stability and long-term growth. Both sides agreed to concessions that helped Ford reduce labor costs while maintaining job security (Budd, 2007).

Google’s Work-Life Balance Dispute (2013): Google used a superordinate goal strategy to address conflicts regarding work-life balance by implementing policies that prioritize employee well-being and company success. This approach helped resolve tensions around employee expectations and productivity, improving overall job satisfaction (Koller, 2013).

Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives at Intel (2015): Intel’s commitment to diversity and inclusion represented a superordinate goal of creating a fairer and more equitable workplace. The company’s efforts to address gender and racial disparities helped resolve tensions around diversity issues, resulting in better hiring practices and employee engagement (Binns, 2015).

In hindsight, most of these efforts did not last as long as their participants might have wished due to changing circumstances, but for a crucial period of time, their efforts succeeded, proving that superordinate goals work, should there be any doubters.

Conflict resolution is a living process; its results should never be taken for granted.

Conclusion

Superordinate Goals offers a valuable alternative to traditional conflict resolution approaches, particularly in situations where open dialogue is likely to be counterproductive. By carefully structuring communication and emphasizing understanding over immediate resolution, this approach can create a safer and more conducive environment for addressing deeply entrenched conflicts.

The downside to using the strategy is that it is requires a great deal of effort to implement. The conflicting parties must be highly motivated to invest in the process.

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

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part13A.pdf

References

American Psychological Association (APA) . (2018, MAY). Superordinate Goal. Retrieved from

APA Dictionary of Psychology: https://dictionary.apa.org/superordinate-goal

Balfour, R. (2009). The European Union’s Role in Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention in the Balkans. Cambridge University Press.

Barrett, R. (1998). The Southwest Airlines Way: A Culture of Service. McGraw-Hill.

Binns, A. (2015). Intel's Diversity Initiative: Building a Culture of Inclusion. Harvard Business Review.

Budd, J. W. (2007). Labor Relations: Striking a Balance. Pearson Education.

Carucci, R. (2014). How to Tackle Organizational Conflict with Transparency and Flexibility. Harvard Business Review.

Deutsch, Morton. (1973). The resolution of conflict; constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fang, T. (2017). ASEAN’s Role in Regional Security: Prospects and Challenges. Oxford University Press.

Flexner, E., & Fitzpatrick, S. (1996). Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States. Belknap Press.

Helft, M. (2006). The Disney-Pixar Merger: A Win-Win for Both Companies. The New York Times.

Hennessey, T. (2000). The Good Friday Agreement: A Framework for Peace in Northern Ireland. International Peace Academy.

Hersh, S. M. (2015). The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Step Toward Global Security. The New Yorker.

Kaplan, R. D. (1996). The Ends of the Earth: A Journey at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Vintage Books.

King, M. L. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Koller, D. (2013). Managing Conflict in the Workplace: Google’s Approach to Work-Life Balance. Forbes.

Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1963). Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. Harper & Row.

Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.

McLeod, S. (2023, FEB). Robbers Cave Experiment I Realistic Conflict. Retrieved from simplypsychology.org: https://simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html

Milgram, S. (1969). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

Murithi, T. (2008). The African Union’s Role in Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Patterson, J. T. (2010). Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974. Oxford University Press.

Perry, G. (2018). The Lost Boys: Inside the mind of the Robber's Cave Experiment. Arcade Publishing.

Sherif, M. (1954). Experimental study of positive and negative intergroup attitudes between

Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195 (5), 54-59.

Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of

Sherif, M., Harvey, 0. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and

Sherif, M., Harvey, O., White, B., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1988). The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Sociology, 349-356.

Tutu, D. (1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. Doubleday.

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?