resolving_issues_with_your_boss

03/16/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 14A):

Unilateral Initiatives / GRIT

Summary of Part 13B

Part 13B was the second of two-part examinations of the conflict resolution strategy of Superordinate Goals as an effective conflict resolution strategy in the workplace. It examined both a reactive and proactive approach, with the proactive approach discussed in great detail.

By way of comparison, the same two scenarios presented in previous strategies were discussed, demonstrating how implementing a Controlled Communications strategy might proceed for either party.

Introduction

This is the first of two parts addressing Unilateral Initiatives (UI) and Graduated Reduction in Tension-Reduction (GRIT).

A "unilateral" action is a technique one person or party takes without explicitly expecting a reciprocal act in return. Unilateral actions frequently respond to physical, psychological, and self-fulfillment needs. The concept of unilateral action has existed for centuries. The Bible contains numerous examples, and various psychological theories highlight its role in human behavior.

Sigmund Freud (1923) emphasized the role of internal drives and unconscious motivations in shaping individual behavior. Alfred Adler (1930) highlighted human behavior's active and independent nature. Carl Rogers (1961) stressed the importance of self-actualization and the inherent drive toward growth and fulfillment. Abraham Maslow (1943) developed the hierarchy of needs theory, describing human motivation as fulfilling a progression of basic needs.

From a psychological perspective, unilateral actions can be functional or dysfunctional, depending on the underlying motivations. However, in dispute resolution, a unilateral initiative refers specifically to an action taken by one party to de-escalate tension or conflict. These initiatives are one-sided gestures intended to build goodwill or reduce hostility without expecting immediate reciprocation. Much of the early work on unilateral actions was conducted by Morton Deutsch (1958, 1960), John W. Burton (1961, 1962), and Charles E. Osgood (1959, 1962, 1963).

Unilateral action is often viewed as a one-time tactic rather than a sustained strategy.

Charles Osgood and GRIT

In 1962, Osgood proposed that unilateral actions could be used strategically to trigger a series of multi-party initiatives to gradually reduce tension over time. His book, An Alternative to War or Surrender, explicitly outlines a method to de-escalate international conflicts without resorting to war or capitulation. It proposes initiating a quid pro quo process that becomes increasingly substantive over time. Drawing on psychological and strategic principles, Osgood introduced a structured series of unilateral conciliatory gestures designed to foster mutual trust and cooperation between international adversaries. Each step is carefully crafted to reduce tensions while maintaining national security, ensuring that the initiative represents a sincere attempt to manage and mitigate hostilities.

The steps to GRIT involve publicly announcing the intention to de-escalate tensions, emphasizing a commitment to peace, stability, and resolution without preconditions. A small, meaningful conciliatory gesture is initiated, significant enough to be noticed, and publicized to demonstrate sincerity and foster accountability. The adversary's response is monitored, and actions are adjusted accordingly. The process is gradually repeated with incremental steps, avoiding ultimatums and maintaining a collaborative atmosphere. Throughout, gestures must not compromise core interests, ensuring that trust is built over time and a foundation for broader cooperation or formal agreements is established.

While the Tit-for-Tat response pattern briefly discussed in Part 5 is the most widely recognized approach for transitioning from incremental UI behavior to cooperation, other variations have been suggested, including Conditional Cooperation (Lindskold), Constructive Engagement (Davies), Escalation of Commitment (Kydd), Reciprocal Altruism (Patchen, Komorita), and Trust-Building (Liao). These approaches serve as alternatives or complements to GRIT. They share the common goal of reducing conflict and promoting cooperation but differ in emphasis, risk tolerance, and mechanisms for achieving long-term collaborative relations.

Regional & International Conflicts

One of the most cited instances of GRIT in practice is the U.S. response following the Cuban Missile Crisis. Political scientist Amitai Etzioni (1967) argued that President John F. Kennedy implemented measures aligning with GRIT to reduce tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. In researching a 1977 article about unilateral initiatives, I spoke with Osgood by phone to inquire about this subject. He mentioned receiving a note from President Kennedy's secretary stating that Kennedy had read An Alternative to War or Surrender and wanted to thank him for it. Osgood did not elaborate further.

This conversation took place over a decade after Kennedy’s assassination and Etzioni’s article. I was surprised by Osgood's response, as it suggested that while Kennedy’s actions vis-à-vis the Soviet Union may have been GRIT-like, they were not part of an explicit, Kennedy-inspired GRIT experiment. The absence of a publicly announced intention to de-escalate tensions, a core Osgood GRIT component, supports this conclusion.

However, I do not take a purist approach regarding GRIT or any other conflict resolution strategy. The purpose of this entire series is to provide context for understanding all of the strategies discussed: how they were first conceived, how they have been used in the past, and how they may be applied in the workplace of the future. Conflict resolution must always consider context. Being "GRIT-like" can still contribute to de-escalation and tension reduction, even if an initiative does not fully adhere to Osgood’s GRIT principles.

As previously noted — and a major discussion point in the upcoming “Putting it All Together” section — different conflict resolution strategies can be paired and implemented in series or parallel. Many of the International example conflicts previously identified in other parts of this series fit this description. One unidentified example is Qatar’s GRIT-like approach to reducing tensions with Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries. This effort also used phased intercession, controlled communication, and superordinate goal strategies that contributed to the signing of the Al-Ula Declaration in 2021, effectively ending the blockade and restoring diplomatic relations.

Business Disputes

Similarly, the same principles apply to business conflict resolution. While explicit references to GRIT being used in business disputes are rare, the underlying approach of initiating unilateral, conciliatory actions to foster trust and cooperation has been used in various organizational settings to manage and resolve conflicts.

In business settings, companies often employ strategies mirroring GRIT-like initiatives to navigate complex relationships. These strategies can be valuable in easing supplier-client tensions, negotiating labor disputes, and even addressing competitive rivalries. A firm might, for instance, reduce aggressive pricing strategies or offer goodwill services, like extended warranties or personalized support, to demonstrate a commitment to mutual success. Such actions, when perceived as genuine, can lay the groundwork for more cooperative and profitable long-term relationships.

Promotional activities, including sales, deals, and other offers, are also a routine part of business.

While excessive or poorly executed promotions can be perceived as annoying by some, strategically designed promotions can actually complement a GRIT-like approach.

Instead of viewing promotions solely as a means of getting rid of old product or attracting new customers, consider how they can be used to incentivize desired behaviors and reinforce positive relationships. For example, offering exclusive discounts to long-term customers as a reward for their continued business can be a powerful GRIT-like gesture. It demonstrates appreciation, encourages future loyalty, and signals a commitment to the long-term value of the relationship.

Similarly, providing early access to new products or offering personalized recommendations based on past purchases can build a sense of exclusivity and strengthen customer bonds. The key is to frame promotions not just as short-term sales tactics, but as opportunities to build trust and demonstrate value.

Just as GRIT-like strategies can foster cooperation in external business relationships, similar principles of trust-building are crucial for resolving internal conflicts, particularly where hierarchical differences complicate direct negotiations. By initiating trust-based gestures, organizations create environments where employees feel more secure in reciprocating cooperative behavior.

These gestures can take many forms. Open and transparent communication, where leaders actively listen to employee concerns and share relevant information, is essential. Empowering employees by giving them more autonomy and decision-making power can also build trust. Recognizing and rewarding employee contributions, both big and small, demonstrates that their work is valued. Providing opportunities for professional development and growth shows a commitment to investing in employees' futures.

Even simple gestures, like regular check-ins and open-door policies, can contribute to a more trusting and collaborative workplace culture. When employees feel valued and respected, they are more likely to reciprocate with loyalty, engagement, and a willingness to work collaboratively towards shared goals. This internal trust then strengthens the organization's ability to engage in successful, cooperative relationships externally.

Conclusion

Unilateral initiatives (UI) and GRIT have offered practical strategies for conflict resolution in both international and business contexts. Osgood's GRIT model emphasizes gradual, goodwill-building gestures to reduce tension, fostering trust and cooperation. While not always fully adhering to GRIT's principles, its core philosophy remains relevant in diverse scenarios, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or Qatar’s recent diplomatic efforts. In business, similar trust-building actions, like goodwill gestures and transparent communication, can resolve disputes and create long-term, collaborative relationships. Whether in global politics or organizational settings, strategies that prioritize incremental de-escalation and mutual trust are essential for sustainable conflict resolution and cooperation.

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

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part14A.pdf

References

Adler, A. (1930). The science of living. Greenberg.

Axelrod, R. (1980). More Effective Choice in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(3), 379–403.

Bohm, D. (1996). "On Dialogue." Routledge.

Davies, J. E. (2008). South Africa and Constructive Engagement: Lessons Learned? Journal of Southern African Studies, 34(1), 5–19.

Etzioni, A. (1967). The Kennedy Experiment. The Western Political Quarterly (Vol. XX, No. 2, Part 1), June, 361-380.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id (J. Riviere, Trans.). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923).

Friedman, J. W. (1983). "The Distributional Effects of Unilateral Initiatives in International Relations." International Studies Quarterly, 27(2), 177-198.

Griffiths, J. A., & McClintock, C. G. (2004). "Strategies of Escalation and De-escalation in Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(2), 207-226.

Komorita, S. S., Hilty, J. A., & Parks, C. D. (1991). Reciprocity and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(3), 494–518.

Kydd, A. H. (2003). "Choosing to Engage: The Strategic Logic of Peacemaking." International Security, 28(2), 108-148.

Liao, N. C. (2014). Comparing Inter-Korean and Cross-Taiwan Strait Trust-Building: The Limits of Reassurance. Asian Survey, 54(6), 1037–1058.

Lindskold, S., & Collins, M. G. (1978). Inducing Cooperation by Groups and Individuals: Applying Osgood’s Grit Strategy. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22(4), 679–690.

Lindskold, S., Walters, P. S., & Koutsourais, H. (1983). Cooperators, Competitors, and Response to GRIT. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(3), 521–532.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity." Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298.

Osgood, C. E. (1959). Suggestions for Winning the Real War with Communism. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3(4), 295–325.

Osgood, C. E. (1962). An Alternative to War or Surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Osgood, C. E. (1963). "Cooperation and Confrontation: The Role of Gradualism in International Relations." Journal of Conflict Resolution, 7(1), 71-94.

Patchen, M. (1987). Strategies for Eliciting Cooperation from an Adversary: Laboratory and Internation Findings. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(1), 164–185.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.

Tullock, G. (1983). "The Economics of Conflict." Rationality and Society, 1(3), 396-406.

Walton, D., & McGraw, K. (1991). "Unilateral Initiatives and Negotiation Outcomes." Negotiation Journal, 7(3), 201-218.

Zartman, I. W. (2001). "Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution." International Negotiation, 6(3), 305-324.

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?