resolving_issues_with_your_boss

02/16/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 12A):

Controlled Communications

Summary of Part 11B

Part 11B challenged the supposition that Phased Intercession, a strategy originally developed to resolve and decrease tensions at the international and inter-group levels, always requires third-party facilitators. It proposes that the approach can also be applied to group and individual workplace disputes and can be initiated independently by both the employer and the employee.

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

Introduction

This is the first of two parts addressing Controlled Communication.

Controlled communication is a structured conflict resolution strategy designed to resolve disputes in a focused, collaborative, and systematic manner. It emphasizes clear, purpose-driven communication and procedural safeguards to de-escalate tensions and find mutually acceptable solutions. The strategy relies on structure and process to reduce the likelihood of power-based negotiation tactics and manipulation.

A neutral third-party facilitator or facilitation team often plays a key role in guiding the sessions, serving as either process or subject matter experts.

Implementing this strategy requires careful preparation—it cannot be done hastily. The Outreach Phase is critical, where all relevant parties involved in the dispute must be identified and individually invited to participate. Invitations must be clear, and the controlled communication process must be fully explained. The purpose and desired outcomes of the communication sessions must be unambiguous.

The agreed-upon communication protocols should be highly structured, with turn-taking rules allowing each party to express their perspective without interruption. Boundaries must be established to maintain civility, prevent interruptions, and avoid personal attacks (e.g., using neutral language, active listening). Data gathering is essential to collect relevant information, documents, and facts, grounding discussions in evidence.

How the sessions will be documented, roles and responsibilities, and how action items will be agreed upon and acted upon must be clearly discussed and established.

To keep discussions on track, predefined agendas must be strictly followed. Time limits for speaking ensure balanced participation, and pauses are used if emotions run too high, followed by clarifications to prevent escalation.

Unlike classic power-based negotiation, much of the work in controlled communication involves reframing emotionally charged statements into neutral, objective terms and helping the parties acknowledge and empathize with each other’s valid points. This requires each party to repeat or summarize what the other party has said to demonstrate clear understanding and ask open-ended questions to ensure clarity and avoid assumptions.

The ultimate goal is for the parties to identify areas of agreement as a foundation for progress in problem-solving and the creation of objective criteria to assess the feasibility and fairness of proposed solutions. A feedback mechanism should be established to evaluate the effectiveness of the resolution.

Finally, the parties must agree to adopt a flexible approach if new issues arise or circumstances change.

Controlled Communications Origins

Controlled communication was largely inspired by John W. Burton, a prominent scholar in conflict resolution, best known for his Human Needs Theory, which emphasizes that conflicts arise from unmet human needs rather than from competition over resources or positions.

The strategy shares similarities with diplomatic negotiations between conflicting nations. Early initiatives using facilitated, non-directive approaches to resolve deep-rooted conflicts in places like Cyprus, Sri Lanka, and Northern Ireland were foundational. Christopher Mitchell (1981) outlined how initial controlled communication exercises led to the development of principles for the “problem-solving” approach. These principles included facilitative, non-judgmental, and coercion-free interactions, which were considered essential for success.

The approach used social science analytical tools to understand the roots of conflict and explore cooperative solutions. It was influenced by the "behavioral" challenge to power-based thinking in International Relations, emphasizing decision-making, distorted perceptions, and the impact of new information on conflict systems.

Burton's ideas, shaped by social casework theories, emphasized the importance of a third-party facilitator helping adversaries jointly analyze and solve conflicts, rather than imposing solutions.

The Controlled Communications Phases

Controlled communication involves several phases designed to manage and resolve conflicts constructively and effectively. The term “phase” should not be interpreted as a conventional project plan with straightforward, sequential tasks. Instead, these phases should be viewed as conditions necessary for the communication process to move forward, with the aim of facilitating clear, non-confrontational communication between parties to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.

At any point, communication may falter, circumstances may change, and because there is no formal agreement, issues and tentative solutions may need to be revisited and reframed. Aside from the Outreach Phase discussed earlier, the strategy typically includes the following phases:

The Preparation Phase involves the parties assessing the situation, identifying the issues at hand, and preparing themselves for the conversation. This preparation includes understanding their own perspective, the other party's potential concerns, desired outcomes, and what they might be willing to compromise on to address the other party’s concerns.

In the Dialogue Phase, the conversation is initiated in a non-threatening manner, and a collaborative tone is set. This phase often includes a clear statement of intent, such as expressing a willingness to listen and find a solution.

The Active Listening and Clarification Phases emphasize listening attentively to the other party's perspective without interruption, validating their concerns, and asking clarifying questions. Active listening ensures that all parties feel heard and understood.

The Problem-Solving and Discussion phase focuses on discussing possible solutions once the parties understand each other’s positions. The goal is to work collaboratively to identify a resolution that meets both parties' needs, ensuring that all concerns are addressed.

The Negotiation and Agreement Phase is when the parties negotiate the terms of the resolution, making compromises as necessary. Once a mutually acceptable solution is found, the parties agree on the next steps.

In the Closing the Dialogue Phase, the agreement is summarized, ensuring both sides are on the same page, and the conversation is concluded on a positive note. This phase may also include setting a Follow-Up and Evaluation Phase to monitor the actions agreed upon and assess whether the solution is working as intended.

If new issues arise, the process may restart at one or more appropriate phases.

These phases aim to foster cooperation, reduce conflict escalation, and promote lasting resolutions. The emphasis is on clear, respectful, and controlled communication throughout the process.

Domestic & International Conflicts

Controlled communications strategies have been successfully applied to a number of Domestic and International conflicts:

Controlled communications played a central role in the Camp David Accords of 1978. Mediating peace negotiations between Egypt and Israel. U.S. President Jimmy Carter facilitated structured discussions with clear ground rules, neutral language, and an agenda that focused on shared interests. This resulted in the historic peace treaty between the two nations (Quandt, 1986) .

The process was also applied successfully to the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Using a team of international and domestic leaders, sessions of structured dialogues were used to bridge divides between Protestant unionists and Catholic nationalists. Controlled communications ensured equal participation, neutral facilitation, and respect for all parties, ultimately resulting in a peace agreement (Mitchell, G.J., 1999).

Controlled communications were used during the 1957 federally enforced desegregation of Central High School in Desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. Stakeholders, including federal authorities, school officials, and local leaders, engaged in structured dialogues to manage public tensions and ensure a peaceful resolution (Jacoway, 2007).

The U.S. Police Reform Dialogues that occurred between 2015–2020 used Controlled Communication frameworks to facilitate discussions between law enforcement and community leaders. These efforts focused on de-escalating anger and developing actionable reforms (Useem & Clark, 2021).

Business Disputes

During Chrysler’s financial crisis of the 1980s, controlled communications were used to mediate disputes between executives, unions, and creditors. The extended process led to a collaborative restructuring plan that saved the company (Vlasic, 2011).

The formal merger between Hewlett-Packard and Compaq created prolonged disputes among shareholders and executives, from 2001 to 2002. Controlled communication helped mitigate misunderstandings, allowing the merger to proceed and ultimately succeed (Fisher, L. M., 2002).

Conclusion

Controlled Communications 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_part12A.pdf

References

Burton, John W. 1969. Conflict and Communication London: Macmillan.

De Reuck, A.V.S. 1974. "The Resolution of Conflict" The Human Context. Vol.6 No.1 Spring, pp.64-80.

Deutsch, Karl W. 1963. Nerves of Government New York: Free Press.

Fisher, L. M. (2002). "HP and Compaq: The Merger Decision." Harvard Business Review.

Jacoway, E. (2007). Turn Away Thy Son: Little Rock, the Crisis That Shocked the Nation. Free Press.

Kelman, Herbert C. ed. 1965. International Behaviour New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

Mitchell, C.R. 1981. Peacemaking and the Consultant's Role Farnborough: Gower Press.

Mitchell, G. J. (1999). Making Peace. Knopf.

Quandt, W. B. (1986). Camp David: Peacemaking and Politics. Brookings Institution Press.

Useem, B., & Clark, J. P. (2021). Policing and Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press.

Vlasic, B. (2011). Once Upon a Car: The Fall and Resurrection of America’s Big Three Auto Makers. Harper Business.

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?