Designing a Conflict Management System for Higher Education: A Case Study for Design in Integrative Organizations

Abstract

In 1994, the Univ ersity System of Georgia embarked on an ambitious eff ort to reduce the costs of disputing by creating what is now possibly the largest comprehensive, integrated confl ict management system (ICMS) in higher education. For almost twenty years, the Consortium on Negotiation an d Confl ict Resolution has provided technical advice and support for this initiative. Th is article reviews the context, summarizes the ICMS design, draws a few lessons, and speculates on the value of this work. Because of my close personal involvement, I am straying from convention and telling this story from the fi rst-person perspective. Although probably skewed by hindsight, the historical context is important because our decisions and actions refl ected the prevailing conditions and our nascent level of knowledge and experience. Th e overarching lessons are applicable to most organizations and particularly salient for the confl ict management challenges facing the diverse colleges and universities in the United States today and any multifaceted, integrative organization.

Religion and Social Class: Theory and Method after Bourdieu

“…Every field is hierarchical because capital cannot be evenly distributed, and this is particularly true of symbolic forms of capital which cannot be divided and shared; this may be one reason for the intensity of religious conflicts (Kniss 1997; Brittain and Mckinnon 2011). This is also why “Sayre's law” (the politics in academia are so intense because the stakes are so low (Yarn 2014)) is wrong: it fundamentally misunderstands the kind of capital which matters in that field.…”

State of Knowledge: Conflict Coaching Theory, Application, and Research

“…In reporting on what is likely the largest conflict management system in higher education, Yarn () noted that thousands of internal stakeholders in the University System of Georgia have been trained in dispute resolution processes that include conflict coaching. Yarn also noted that training participants over twenty years have found these offerings personally valuable and useful in the workplace.…”

“…Early on, it was positioned as a potential secondary or tertiary practice for those primarily trained in another conflict resolution process such as mediation (Brinkert ). Given the general attractiveness of dyadic conflict coaching and similar processes and the high proportion of the time they are engaged (Levine‐Finley ), as well as the sometimes inappropriateness or ineffectiveness of using other conflict resolution processes such as mediation (Bollen and Euwema ), the conflict resolution field should make a deliberate effort to move beyond “mediation‐centrism” (Yarn , 97). This is especially the case when engaging conflict coaching means upholding a key tenet of alternative dispute resolution by keeping the conflict process as close as possible to those directly involved (Yarn ).…”

Integrating Unions in Integrated Conflict Management Systems

“…An ICMS differs from individual workplace dispute resolution (ADR) techniques and services—such as mediation, arbitration, coaching, facilitation, or support from an ombudsman—and from ADR programs that may offer one or more of these techniques. The key factor that distinguishes the ICMS model is its integration of conflict resolution techniques with a commitment by an adopting organization to “manage the conditions that give rise to conflict and the resolution of disputes arising from conflict” rather than solely to focus on the resolution of disputes (Yarn , 86). The authors of a 2001 Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution report that introduced a formalized model for ICMSs offer five characteristics of such systems (Gosline et al , 9): The widest possible scope, with “options for all types of problems and all people in the workplace” “A culture that welcomes dissent and encourages resolution of conflict at the lowest level through direct negotiation” “Multiple access points” that allow employees to get into the system through a variety of doors and mechanisms “Multiple options—both rights‐based and interest‐based—to resolve conflict” “Systemic support and structures … that integrate effective conflict management into the organization's daily operations” …”