resolving_issues_with_your_boss

02/02/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 11A):

Phased Intercession

Summary of Part 10

Part 10 argued that employees should maintain detailed records of their work activities, such as weekly status reports, to avoid being unprepared in the event of workplace conflicts.

By documenting their workplace activities employees create a factual foundation to support their perspective, prevent misunderstandings, and ensure fair treatment. Sharing these records with supervisors fosters transparency, builds trust, and helps resolve conflicts constructively. While some supervisors may resist this, the offer to share demonstrates professionalism and a commitment to clear communication.

Introduction

The discussion of Phased Intercession will be divided into two subsequent parts, Part 10A and Part 10B. Part 10A will address an overview of the strategy, its origins, and its past applications in international affairs, ongoing domestic conflicts, and business conflicts. Part 10B will go to great pains to make a cogent argument as to why a strategy initially constructed for use in complex large-group conflicts can appropriately apply the same strategy to workplace disputes involving single individuals. Two example disputes will be given and discussed.

The Phased Intercession Strategy

With the inclusion of non-attorneys actively involved in guiding the dispute resolution agenda and shifting the focus from conflict management to conflict resolution, we now have a significantly different approach. Instead of relying on adjudicative processes that are less complex and less formal but still focus primarily on legal matters, we have a strategy where the primary effort is to identify and address the underlying root causes of the conflict.

Lawyers may still be involved as "Officers of the Court," but their role has radically changed. If attorneys are part of the process, their role is to support an agreement that benefits all parties involved. This is a crucial but subtle distinction. Rather than driving the discussion through an ex officio interpretation of the law, the agreement is shaped by the parties' concerns and motivations. These guide the attorney’s efforts to draft a legal document that reflects the details of that agreement while remaining acceptable to the Court.

Phased Intercession is strategic because it responds to the complexity and prolonged nature of the conflict. It is designed for disputes involving multiple parties that persist over extended periods. This strategy is grounded in the understanding that political, social, or economic conflicts do not have simple, immediate solutions. Instead, successful resolution often requires a systematic, gradual approach that adapts to the changing dynamics of the conflict over time.

The roots of Phased Intercession can be traced back to early conflict resolution theories that emphasized the need for mediation, negotiation, and diplomacy. In the 20th century, scholars and practitioners in international relations, peace studies, and conflict management began to recognize that peace processes often face significant obstacles, including entrenched hostilities, competing interests, and external influences. These challenges led to the realization that quick fixes were unlikely to yield a stable, long-lasting cessation of hostilities.

Origins of the Phased Approach

Originally envisioned as an approach to resolving group conflicts—often those involving armed, self-governing groups or nation-states—Phased Intercession emerged within the framework of a concerted inquiry into the causes of social and armed conflict, particularly in response to global events in the 20th century. While no single group of conflict theorists directly developed the strategy, it draws on research from sociology, psychology, and political science. Early practitioners of conflict resolution, many of whom were academics and respected figures, leveraged their social standing and reputations to gain access to influential leaders in conflicting groups. Their credibility and trustworthiness were instrumental in facilitating dialogue and reducing tensions.

Since then, the field of conflict resolution has evolved, becoming more inclusive and diverse. Today, practitioners come from a wide range of backgrounds, including grassroots organizations and community-based initiatives. While social standing and academic credentials may still help gain access to leaders, successful mediation now depends more on practical experience, trust-building, and expertise, rather than solely on influence and reputation. This shift reflects a broader, more inclusive approach to resolving conflicts.

The strategy consists of several stages.

The initial phase, which is often overlooked, involves making an accurate assessment. This includes gathering data, identifying the key issues or problems, understanding the scope of the situation, and evaluating possible interventions. Without accurate information to set clear conflict resolution objectives, success is improbable. Planning in this phase focuses on developing a detailed intervention plan based on the assessment, which includes establishing clear goals, selecting tactics, determining resources, and creating timelines. Collaboration with stakeholders and experts may also occur here.

The initial intervention action steps are implemented on a smaller scale or in a controlled manner. This often involves piloting or testing strategies before full-scale deployment. Once the initial intervention begins, a review is always conducted to assess the effectiveness of the actions. Key metrics and outcomes, established during the planning stage, are examined to ensure progress toward the desired goals. Based on feedback and performance, adjustments will be necessary.

If the initial interventions prove successful, the next phase involves expanding or scaling the actions to address the broader scope of the problem or ensure sustainability. This phase may also involve deepening the intervention or providing long-term support. Monitoring is essential to maintaining effectiveness and preventing the recurrence of issues. The focus here is on ensuring the continued success of the intervention and making ongoing adjustments as needed.

Finally, the intervention is concluded, and responsibilities are transitioned to local or autonomous entities, ensuring the sustainability of the changes. This phase emphasizes the development of exit strategies or the final resolution of the issue. While these phases may overlap or vary depending on the context, they generally follow a structured sequence of assessment, planning, intervention, evaluation, scaling, consolidation, and exit.

Domestic / Intranational Examples

Phased Intercession has been applied to various domestic conflicts involving political, ethnic, or regional tensions, where traditional resolution methods may fall short. In these situations, the approach helps resolve disputes incrementally, fostering trust and cooperation over time.

Notable examples include Northern Ireland, where phased efforts led to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement after years of confidence-building and negotiations on issues such as power-sharing and disarmament.

Similarly, South Africa’s peaceful transition from apartheid involved incremental steps such as confidence-building measures and the drafting of a new constitution, culminating in the establishment of a peaceful democratic government. In Colombia, peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) followed a phased approach, beginning with ceasefire agreements and progressing to broader political and social negotiations, ultimately leading to the 2016 peace agreement. These examples demonstrate the effectiveness of Phased Intercession in resolving complex intranational conflicts.

Business Disputes

Phased Intercession strategies in business disputes are applied in various contexts, such as mergers, acquisitions, and labor negotiations. While specific documented cases may not always explicitly refer to the term "Phased Intercession," businesses frequently employ incremental, trust-building steps to resolve conflicts. Notable examples include the Northern Telecom and Ericsson Patent Dispute (1990s), the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement (2001), the Airbus and Boeing Subsidy Dispute (2004-2020s), the Disney and Pixar Merger (2006), and the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Bottling Dispute (2010).

Phased Intercession offers several advantages in the context of business disputes. It allows businesses to avoid the risks of a one-time, high-stakes resolution process. By proceeding step-by-step, businesses can minimize the likelihood of escalation and maintain operational continuity.

Business disputes often involve ongoing relationships that businesses cannot afford to sever completely. Phased Intercession emphasizes trust-building and negotiation, which helps preserve relationships even in the midst of disagreements. This strategy is flexible, allowing businesses to adjust their approach as the dispute evolves. As new information or circumstances arise, the process can adapt to meet the changing needs of both parties.

Most importantly, because solutions are developed incrementally, they tend to be more thoughtful and sustainable. Businesses are more likely to agree to and adhere to solutions reached through gradual negotiation, with a clear understanding of how they will be implemented. By addressing issues early and avoiding lengthy litigation, Phased Intercession can be more cost-effective than pursuing an all-or-nothing legal battle. It also reduces the potential for reputational damage or public disputes.

Conclusion

Phased Intercession has proven to be a valuable strategy in resolving intranational conflicts. Its focus on incremental progress, trust-building, and adaptive negotiation helps create sustainable peace agreements, especially in contexts where immediate, comprehensive resolutions are unrealistic. From Northern Ireland to South Africa to Colombia, the success of this approach illustrates its potential to address even the most entrenched domestic conflicts, leading to lasting peace and stability.

While the term "Phased Intercession" is not always explicitly used in business disputes, incremental negotiation, step-by-step resolution, and gradual trust-building are widely applied in many high-profile business conflicts. These examples show how gradual, staged approaches can help companies resolve disputes, preserve business relationships, and adapt to changing circumstances over time. In the absence of all-out litigation or sudden resolutions, these disputes were handled with a recognition that lasting solutions often require phased, flexible approaches.

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

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part11A.pdf

References

Brett, J. M., & Lempereur, A. (2007). Negotiation and conflict management: Theories and practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(3), 305-321

Kolb, D. M., & Williams, J. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.

Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2014). Interpersonal conflict (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Schneider, M., & Honeyman, C. (2007). Mediation in the business context. Negotiation Journal, 23(1), 63-74.

Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515-558.

Gelfand, M. J., & Brett, J. M. (2004). The cultural negotiation model. Negotiation Journal, 20(3), 307-319.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Psychology Press.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

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?