United States, Conflict Resolution

6th Amendment, again

The Sixth Amendment states: „In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, ….“

For Americans, whether in the legal system or in the workplace, the right to a hearing is fundamental. The hearing allows for the parties in conflict to make their arguments and counter-arguments. It is the beginning of the formal process of conflict resolution. Americans expect the team lead to call a hearing quickly.

In a fair hearing the conflict parties have the opportunity to present evidence – including witnesses – and to discover what evidence is brought against them. The hearing also allows for questioning (cross-examination) of the opposing party‘s witnesses. A hearing is only fair if it is administered by an impartial third party.

In the American business context the manager, as judge, may resolve the conflict based on those arguments and counter-arguments, or use the hearing as a basis for further investigation into the reasons for the conflict.

Because American managers are responsible for the results their teams produce, they focus on maintaining internal team cohesion. Conflict of any kind threatens cohesion. After having learned of an internal conflict, American managers are inclined to call the conflict parties together at very short notice. That first hearing is direct, informal and personal. The manager wants to „get to the bottom of the problem.“

Litigious

Litigious: To be litigious means to argue, to contend, to take your dispute to the courts. American society has become very litigious. With a population of roughly 310 million people, the U.S. has 1.2 million attorneys, 200 law schools, graduating approximately 45,000 lawyers each and every year. The court of law is where conflict is resolved.

How conflict is resolved is foundational to any society. It is a system for balancing out conflicting interest. Conflict resolution is so central to our daily lives, in so many or our interactions, that we are continuously fascinated by how they play out.

This fascination is the reason why many movies and television shows are based on the law and legal proceedings. Among the most popular in the U.S. were: L.A. Law (1986-94), the classic Perry Mason (1957-66), The Defenders (1961-65), Law & Order (1990-2010).

The popularity of these shows has led to the reality court room shows, a combination of reality television and the workings of the American legal system. The best known are Judge Judy, The People‘s Court and Divorce Court.

Magistrate

The German State of Thüringen (Thuringia) analyzed aspects of its judicial system. It recommended that magistrates (judges) hold separate hearings with the parties in conflict. Separate hearings are considered to be “besonders hilfreich” – especially helpful.

Many attorneys were quoted praising the advantages of separate hearings: “loose, relaxed atmosphere; room to discuss matters other than the conflict itself; each side feels they are taken seriiously; an opportunity to present one’s viewpoint without the other party attacking it; creates a constructive communication climate.”

One of the magistrates underscored the value of holding separate hearings: “For me the most important part of the mediation is the hearing with each party separately. Points are made which are very important to the respective conflict party, points which helped me to better understand the nature of the conflict and which led us to a breakthrough.”

Separate Hearings

German managers are trained to hold separate hearings with the conflict parties. The initial goal is to establish the root cause of the problem and to guage the intensity of the conflict. The German approach avoids a hearing involving both parties. Student mediators in German schools are taught the same method.

A hearing with both conflict parties present almost always leads to an escalation of tension. Emotions run high. Accusations and counter-accusations are made, often without any basis in fact. The mediator can quickly lose control of the situation.

That kind of a hearing only giesst Öl ins Feuer, literally pours oil into the fire; provoke another person; to push a difference of opinions into an open conflict.

The German term Herrschaftswissen, roughly translated as domination or control via better information, in the sense of knowledge is power, has a negative connotation. It signifies power of one over another based on the former‘s access to critical information.

German mediators strive to be better informed of all the details concerning a conflict than the conflict parties themselves. This not only prevents manipulation, it is the basis for resolving the problem.

No Best Practice

Short-, mid-, long-term. Fast, faster, fastest. We know that Americans and Germans define those terms differently. So it is when resolving a conflict.

Germans seek lasting, best practice-like, resolutions. This requires more time upfront, but saves time by reducing the chances that the same or similar conflict arises. Should it arrive, the team need only refer back to the best practice resolution.

Americans seek pragmatic resolutions. Often “down and dirty”, neither elegant nor perfect, they are fast in order to maintain forward movement and team cohesion.

Americans rarely seek a best practice resolution to a given conflict. From their experience, every situation is unique. The context, the content, the people involved, the ramifications, may be similar, but are not the same. Resolution is not a matter of referring to a manual, a process description or an organizational chart.

Due Process

In the U.S. Constitution only one command is stated twice: in the 5th and 14th Amendments: „… or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ….“

This is known as the Due Process Clause, which guarantees that all levels of government in the U.S. must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.

The right of due process is deeply embedded in American thinking, and therefore in the thinking of Americans at the workplace. It is the promise, the guaranty, that a conflict will not be resolved without a process which is fair, transparent, and protects the rights of those involved in the conflict.

It is a question of fairness, of how Americans define what is just. Due Process. It’s what an American employee expects from their next-level management when that manager aims to resolve a conflict within the team.

Land of Lawyers

According to a recent survey, approximately 64% of American parents want their children to grow up to be lawyers. As a result, from a young age American children are taught to admire people who are skilled at presenting cases and winning arguments.

So much so that lawyer is the 14th most common answer that American children give to the question “What do you want to be when you grow up?” Lawyers defend their clients, especially in hearings

Sworn Testimony

During a hearing, called by their boss, Americans are careful, factual, cooperative. Most importantly they are discreet. Anger, impatience, any lack of self control is considered to be unprofessional.

The boss listens carefully to what each party to the conflict claims. In a formal hearing, within the legal system, parties providing testimony first swear that they will provide „the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.“

The consequences for lying – perjury – are serious: a felony which can lead to a prison sentence for up to five years.

Perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath; false swearing.

American managers take very seriously their obligation, duty, responsibility to resolve conflicts within their organizations. Any attempt by a conflict party to manipulate that process is punished quickly and severely.

Fair Hearing

“A fair hearing is a judicial proceeding that is conducted in such a manner as to conform to fundamental concepts of justice and equality.

A fair hearing means that an individual will have an opportunity to present evidence to support his or her case and to discover what evidence exists against him or her . . . . during which time he or she may offer evidence, cross-examine opposition witnesses, and offer a defense.”

In criminal law, when an individual is arrested, a fair hearing means the right to be notified of the charge being brought against him or her and the chance to meet that charge.

Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary(dot)com/fair+hearing

Ask employees

In 2013 there was a lot of controversy regarding allegations of abuse against several members of the Miami Dolphins professional football team. As part of the NFL (National Football League) investigation into these claims, a report was put together analyzing the behavior of the players. This report was primarily based on emails, text messages, and more than a hundred interviews conducted with the Dolphins personnel.

In 2002 the founders of Google attempted to set up an organizational system without managers. After just a few months, however, their system fell apart. Following this, the founders decided to use the failed experiment to determine which characteristics are the most important for strong leaders.

To find these characteristics, the founders considered not only the factual details from the failed system, but they also relied heavily on such things as employee surveys and double-blind interviews.