The Leader's Role as Mediator of Conflict

From my experience as a community college division chair for the past nine years, I have determined that the essential elements of the process include, very simply, (1) believable assumption of a neutral stance, (2) analysis of remote and immediate causes of the conflict, (3) analysis of the potential effects of various possible actions, and (4) determination of a resolution that is fair to the constituents as well as supportive of the college’s mission.

Assuming a Neutral Stance

First, the leader’s assumption of a neutral stance, or distancing from the issue, is absolutely essential if the ultimate resolution has a chance of being accepted by both parties and by the organization at large. It may be that the resolution will never be accepted fully by one or both parties, but the odds certainly go up if the mediator is accepted as a relatively neutral party. Certainly a neutral stance is more likely to be believable if there has been no recognizable bias in existence prior to the conflict, particularly in relation to the personalities involved. More important, however, than the issue of personal bias is the issue of the possibility of bias in regard to the issues in question. Sometimes it is quite difficult to achieve the appearance of neutrality on issues involving values and goals, for most good leaders already have taken stands on a multitude of important issues in the past or may have background or training that is well known and which ordinarily might be construed as constituting a potential for bias. In cases where the leader is particularly vulnerable to accusations of bias, he or she might simply acknowledge the possibility of perceived conflict of interest and defer the mediator role to another leader in the organization. For example, an academic dean whose background is in developmental English might not make a particularly credible mediator in a dispute between developmental English faculty and the counseling staff over the administration of an ambiguous English placement policy, and neither, of course, would a student services dean with a counseling background.

Analyzing the Causes of the Conflict

An even more difficult problem for the mediator is the gathering of relevant information and the analysis of that information to determine the cause or causes of the conflict. Since most major conflicts result from differing values, goals, or personalities, it is crucial for the mediator to come to understand which (any or all) of the types of conflict are involved in the immediate situation. Value-based conflicts are perhaps the toughest to deal with because one’s values are often not compromisable. Goal-based conflicts, involving organizational or personal goals, may be less difficult to deal with. And personality-based conflicts often can be temporarily resolved with transactional techniques, trade-offs that save face without compromising the integrity of anyone. It is also possible to have mixed-based conflict, with one party’s goals in conflict with another party’s values, and so on. Many conflicts may be, at once, value-based, goal-based, and personality-based. Any or all of the core causes may be at work in any combination.

Conflicting Values

For the sake of simplicity, let’s narrow the focus of this conflict to a dispute between the developmental writing instructors and the counseling staff over the issue of whether the English placement policy is to be applied rigidly, based on test scores in all cases, or is to allow for exceptions based on other evidence available to counselors who interview and register all incoming freshmen. Contributing to the problem is the language of the policy itself, which is ambiguous and does lend itself to either interpretation. The instructors have confronted members of the counseling staff, harsh words have been exchanged, and the hostility is so intense that neither the division chair nor the academic dean has been able to resolve the dispute through normal channels with the director of student services. The president of the college, a neutral party, becomes the mediator of last resort.

Putting to work the principles we have discussed, the president’s analysis of the situation determines that the conflict is one of values, personality, and goals¯in that order of importance. The developmental instructors believe strongly in the value of their writing program for students and believe that students’ completion of that program greatly enhances their chances of success not only in English Composition but in most all other courses as well. On the other hand, the student services staff is less enthusiastic about the value of the course. Both the student services staff and the instructors perceive themselves as student advocates, but in different ways. The instructors believe in the validity of the placement procedure; the counseling staff is skeptical of the validity, especially in individual cases where evidence other than the placement test indicates that the student may not need the remediation. The counselors value the students’ right to make their own choices, when possible, after considering the options, while the instructors view the prompt remediation of verbal deficiencies as essential to students’ success at the community college and beyond, regardless of the students’ perception of their own need for remediation. And so it goes.

Conflicting Goals

Clearly, conflicting goals are an issue as well. Important goals of the instructors are to further establish the credibility of their program, to serve effectively all students who need the services, and, understandably, to protect the enrollment in their program. The latter goal is, of course, a less noble goal than the others but nevertheless is a very powerful one in the world of the community college. Important student services goals are to protect the counselor’s right to continue to exercise independent judgment and to protect the reputation of the value of that judgment.

Conflicting Personalities

In addition to conflicting values and goals in this situation, there is also a longstanding personality conflict among some of the individuals. They simply do not like each other, do not respect each other’s judgment, and are suspicious of each other’s motives. The mediator recognizes that the situation is largely out of anyone’s direct control and constitutes a major barrier to the potential success of any proposed solution.

Anticipating Possilbe Effects

Finally, the mediator’s analysis must include consideration of the impact of possible decisions on the individuals and departments involved, the college at large, and external constituencies. In the case of the hypothetical English placement dispute, this consideration might include an analysis of the impact of defeat on either side: what would be the effect of unachieved goals on morale and on the ability of the parties to continue to function effectively? Would compromise on both sides be helpful or harmful? Additional considerations might include the possible effects of a relatively rigid or a relatively loose placement procedure on students, the rest of the college, or external constituents such as public school officials, secondary school guidance staffs, prospective as opposed to actual students, and so on.

Making A Decision

When these matters are considered, the leader must make a decision that generally would be perceived as fair and consistent with the college’s mission¯no small undertaking. Such a decision is so important that it probably should not be made in isolation. At the very least, the advice and counsel of other key people in the organization should be sought and assimilated. In the final analysis, however, there are times when the leader simply cannot escape the burden of making a difficult decision based on the merits of the case and developed through a well-considered analysis of all major issues and relevant considerations. In the case of the English placement dispute, for example, one solution might involve a clarification of the policy, implementing mandatory placement based on college placement test results for most students but broadening the policy to exempt from developmental writing courses all students, regardless of placement test scores, whose high school grade point average in English is 3.5 or above and all students who have scored 550 or higher on the verbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Such a solution would most likely be acceptable to both sides because the new policy would be mandatory and very specific yet still include and allow for the most common reasons (other than placement test results) that, from a counseling perspective, might justify a student’s exemption from the developmental writing requirement. Whatever solution is determined, it is essential to implement it promptly and move on. Acceptance by all parties usually will ensue if the battle has been fought well and fought fairly.