resolving_issues_with_your_boss

03/23/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 14B):

Unilateral Initiatives / GRIT Scenarios

Summary of Part 14A

Part 14A was the first part of a two-part examination of Unilateral Initiatives (UI) and Graduated Reduction in Tension-Reduction (GRIT) as conflict resolution strategies. UI, a one-sided action without immediate reciprocation, is rooted in psychological theories of motivation. GRIT, developed by Charles Osgood, uses a series of escalating unilateral conciliatory gestures to de-escalate conflict. It involves public announcements, meaningful gestures, and monitored responses. While Tit-for-Tat is common, other approaches like Conditional Cooperation exist. Even without strict adherence to the model, GRIT-like actions have been observed in international relations and business, where they can build trust and foster cooperation through gestures like promotional activities or transparent internal communication.

Introduction

The Graduated Reciprocation in Tension-Reduction strategy, commonly called “GRIT, " is based on social psychological theories about conflict, communication, and trust. Its goal is to leverage the social norm of reciprocity. Under the right conditions, individuals feel obligated to respond positively to kind and helpful actions. One party communicates a genuine desire to decrease conflict by making small, unilateral concessions without compromising core self-interest considerations. This action encourages the opposing party to reciprocate. Through repeated and consistent efforts, a cycle of constructive engagement and cooperative behavior is encouraged to develop.

Though GRIT has been successfully implemented in various international, regional, and business conflict situations, this article explores approaches to using GRIT and GRIT-like strategies in the workplace. This is a very different environment than the one envisioned by Charles Osgood and the social scientist who followed in his footsteps.

Assumptions and Preconditions

Reactive dispute resolution strategies in the workplace present challenges for both individual employees and management. As explored in our discussion of phased intercession, controlled communication, and superordinate goals, conflict often induces cognitive dissonance, leading to escalating emotional and dysfunctional responses. Consequently, such initiatives are frequently perceived as disingenuous or implemented too late to be effective.

A proactive approach remains the most effective method for workplace conflict resolution. In particular, using GRIT and GRIT-like signals requires careful attention to the constraints and preconditions that shape all tension-reduction efforts. Understanding these factors is essential for fostering an environment where gradual, reciprocated initiatives are accepted and sustained.

One of the most critical aspects of the workplace is the psychological concept of boundaries. These include boundaries of authority, operational roles, functional knowledge, and, increasingly, contract and employment status due to the growing use of consultants and contractors. Such distinctions deliberately constrain information flow, limit communication channels, and manage organizational tasks to align with strategic and market goals. In hierarchical structures, status, power, and authority influence trust and access to scarce resources. One must first be invited into the room to gain a seat at the table.

This is best described in the well-known bureaucratic and organizational maxim, "Stay in your own swim lane." The phrase draws from competitive swimming, where athletes are assigned lanes in a pool to ensure order and prevent collisions. In an organizational context, it reinforces hierarchical structure, role clarity, and specialization, aimed at ensuring that tasks are completed efficiently without unnecessary duplication of effort or conflict.

Inevitably, a zealous adoption of rigid bureaucratic approaches stifles innovation, limits cross-functional collaboration, discourages initiative, and leads to inefficiencies, siloed thinking, and missed opportunities for process improvement. In modern workplaces, organizations often encourage strategic collaboration across swim lanes while maintaining clear accountability. The key is to strike a balance—knowing when to respect boundaries and when to step beyond them for the greater organizational good. Where and how the "greater organizational good" is interpreted and implemented is largely left to those with the authority to make a final decision, subject to the influence of others viewed as knowledgeable, trustworthy, or politically significant.

A Pre-emptive Approach

Workplace boundaries are crucial, encompassing authority, roles, knowledge, and employment status. These distinctions manage information flow and tasks, aligning them with strategic goals. While traditional hierarchies exist, modern workplaces often feature structures where influence and expertise are significant alongside formal authority. Access to resources often depends on a combination of position and demonstrated value.

The "stay in your swim lane" maxim illustrates this. Like assigned lanes in a pool, it emphasizes role clarity and specialization for efficient task completion. However, a too-rigid adherence stifles innovation and cross-functional collaboration, leading to siloed thinking and missed opportunities. Modern organizations often espouse cross-lane collaboration, but internal politics, competition between departments, or conflicting priorities can hinder this.

Balancing respect for boundaries with the need to cross them is key. This requires careful communication and buy-in. The "greater organizational good" is interpreted differently based on role, time constraints, and trust. High-trust environments allow more fluid movement across boundaries, while low-trust ones reinforce strict adherence to roles. Crossing boundaries is often essential for problem-solving, innovation, and urgent situations. Knowing when and how to navigate these boundaries is a critical workplace skill, the absence of which can lead to conflict, inefficiency, and missed opportunities.

It is within this slender nervous space where employees and their line managers must operate.

Pre-emptive Superordinate Goal Scenarios

Scenario 1: A large technology company is experiencing a prolonged labor dispute with its employees. The primary issues are (1) a push by management to reduce remote work opportunities, citing productivity concerns, and (2) pay differentials between employees who work onsite and those working remotely.

A GRIT-like employer-initiated approach should begin with a unilateral concession, such as temporarily extending remote work while using data-driven evaluations to assess productivity. This signals good faith and shifts the focus to collaborative problem-solving. Management should establish structured communication channels, such as town halls or advisory panels, and appoint a neutral HR liaison to mediate discussions.

To build trust, leadership can propose a trial hybrid model, allowing employees some flexibility while addressing concerns about compensation fairness. A transparent breakdown of pay structures, along with adjustments, if necessary, demonstrates sincerity. Finally, management should encourage employee-led working groups to develop best practices for hybrid work and equitable pay. Small pilot programs based on employee input help shift discussions from conflict to collaboration, aligning company goals with employee concerns.

A GRIT-like employee-initiated approach should start with a non-threatening request, such as a collaborative study of remote and onsite productivity. This approach fosters dialogue without confrontation. Employees can then propose a hybrid compromise and request clear metrics on pay differentials.

To build reciprocity, employees should proactively identify ways to enhance remote work productivity, such as structured reporting and periodic reviews. By shifting from demands to problem-solving, employees gain credibility and influence. Ultimately, co-developing hybrid work policies and a fair pay framework fosters a sustainable, cooperative resolution.

Scenario 2: A supervisor is having an issue with an employee's quality of work, and the employee cites fast-paced demands as a barrier to meeting quality standards.

A GRIT-like approach can be initiated by either the employer or the employee to de-escalate tensions, build trust, and establish a shared understanding of expectations.

For an employer-initiated approach, the supervisor should begin by acknowledging the employee’s concerns while reinforcing the importance of quality work. A small concession, such as a temporary adjustment to deadlines or workload redistribution, can signal good faith. The supervisor should then establish structured communication through scheduled check-ins, allowing for real-time feedback and workload assessments. Instead of immediate corrective action, management can initiate a trial period where the employee prioritizes key quality metrics while identifying specific process bottlenecks.

To build reciprocity, the company should encourage the employee to propose solutions, such as workflow adjustments or additional training. The process should culminate in an informal affinization step where both sides agree on modified expectations, balancing efficiency with quality standards.

For an employee-initiated approach, the worker should begin by proactively requesting a discussion with the supervisor to clarify expectations and express willingness to adapt. Instead of focusing solely on workload challenges, the employee should frame the conversation around productivity solutions, such as workflow refinements or prioritization techniques.

To demonstrate commitment, the employee can propose a short-term adjustment period where they test new strategies to meet both speed and quality benchmarks. Regular check-ins should be established to ensure progress is tracked and refinements are made as needed. This iterative problem-solving approach fosters collaboration and reinforces the employee as a proactive, solutions-oriented team member. Ultimately, the affinization process allows both parties to develop an optimized workflow that maintains performance standards without undue strain.

Conclusion

A proactive GRIT-like approach shifts workplace conflict resolution from reactive responses to structured, reciprocal problem-solving. By addressing assumptions and preconditions, both employees and employers can navigate disputes with transparency and collaboration. The examined scenarios illustrate how small concessions, clear communication, and iterative adjustments foster trust and efficiency. Rather than escalating tensions, a GRIT-based strategy aligns conflicting priorities, creating sustainable, mutually beneficial solutions. Ultimately, this approach strengthens workplace relationships, ensuring that productivity and quality standards are met without unnecessary conflict or inefficiency.

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

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part14B.pdf

References

Boyle, E. H., & Lawler, E. J. (1991). Resolving conflict through explicit bargaining. Social Forces, 69(4), 1183–1204.

Kriesberg, L. (2009). The evolution of conflict resolution. The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace.

Lawler, E. J., & Bacharach, S. B. (1987). Comparison of dependence and punitive forms of power. Social Forces, 66(2), 446–462.

Lawler, E. J., Ford, R., & Blegen, M. A. (1988). Coercive capability in conflict: A test of bilateral deterrence versus conflict spiral theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 93–107.

Lindskold, S. (1971). Reciprocation and other techniques for inducing cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 15(2), 167–195.

Osgood, C. E. (1962). An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

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?