INTERGROUP AND THIRD-PARTY PEACE MAKING INTERVENTIONS

PRESENTED BY- Akhil Sood Himanshu

Pandey Nikhil Shah Rohit Kumar

Singh

UNDER GUIDANCE OF:

Prof. N.K. Chaddha

When there is conflict among groups each groups describes the other in terms of negative stereotypes.

Interaction and communication between the groups decreases.

The atmosphere at the workplace is full of conflicts and misunderstanding.

So two question arises…..

How can we implement conflict-reducing mechanism?

How do we begin?

Intergroup Team-Building Interventions The focus of this team building group

of OD is on improving intergroup relations.

OD methods provide ways of increasing intergroup co-opertion and communication.

Blake,Shepherd and Mouton has developed activities applicable to stressed situations in the forms of steps.

Steps… The leader of the two groups are

asked if they want an ameliorative mechanism for the solution.

If yes, the groups meet in separate rooms and build two lists.

The two groups come together to share each other the information on the list.

Now the groups discuss the areas of disagreement and friction separately and makes a list of priority issues which is usually much smaller than the previous one.

The two groups come back together and share there list, after comparing it they together list the issues which should be resolved. They set priorities and together they take action for resolving the problem.

The groups or the leaders assess how the group are doing there action plan. They follow up the intergroup team-building activity to monitor it.

Third party Peacemaking Intervention-Walton’s Approach

Third party peacemaking intervention- Walton’s Approach

Walton has presented a statement of theory and practice for third-party peace making interventions that is important in its own right and important for its role in organization development.

Walton’s method has a lot in common with group interventions but it is directed more towards, interpersonal conflict.

Third party peacemaking intervention- Walton’s Approach

• The basic feature of this third party peacemaking intervention is ‘Confrontation’ i.e. the two principals must be willing to confront the fact that conflict exists and that it has consequences on the effectiveness of the two parties involved.

• The third party must know how, when and where to utilize confrontation tactics that surface the conflict for examination.

Walton’s model for diagnosis of conflict situation

The model is based on four elements: The conflict issues. Precipitating circumstances. Conflict relevant acts. The consequences of the conflict.

Apart from these four key elements of conflict diagnosis it is also important to know and differentiate the source of conflict.

Sources of Conflict

Substantive Issues Emotional Issues

Involves disagreements over policies and practices, competitive bids for the same resources and differing conceptions of roles and role relationships.

Require problem-solving and bargaining behaviors between the principals.

Involves negative feelings between the parties(e.g., anger, distrust, scorn, resentment, fear, rejection).

Requires restructuring perceptions and working through negative feelings.

Walton’s outline for productive confrontation(process of addressing conflict)Mutual positive motivation.Balance of power.Synchronization of confrontation efforts.Differentiation and integration of different

phases of the intervention must be well paced.Conditions that promote openness should be

created.Reliable communicative signals.Optimum tension in the situation .

Organizational Mirroring

Questions

1. Describe the organizational mirroring intervention and its intended use in creating positive change in the workplace.

2. Describe the steps and goals of the organizational mirroring process.

Set of activities in which host group receives feedback about how it is perceived and regarded from reps across organization

Intended to improve intergroup relationships

Different from inter-group team building intervention.

Process1. Host group asks key reps from interface group (customer-

supplier groups) to meet and provide feedback2. Pre- and post interviews by consultant to identify

magnitude of issue(s), prep participants and answer their questions

3. At the actual session:1. Opening remarks by manger of host group to set tone2. Guests use fishbowl discussion to maintain natural

flow; hosts listen3. Hosts fishbowl discuss, ask for clarification from guests4. Subgroups of guests and hosts form to identify most

important changes host group needs to make5. Reconvene in large group to hear summaries of each

sub group and form master task list6. Action planning, tasks, responsible parties, completion

dates established and agreed, concluding mirroring session

7. Follow-up meeting to assess and review progress

Partnering

PARTNERING• Used in situations where two or more entities are

likely to incur unnecessary conflict and/or cost overruns.

• A variation of team building and strategic planning

• Objective is to form ‘ an effective problem finding/problem solving management team composed of personnel from both the parties, thus creating a single culture with one set of goals and objectives for the project.

• Ideally, partnering involves all the functions in the project, including engineering and design, site management, and home office support.

PARTNERING – A CASE• Case involved US Army Corps of Engineers and a

Contractor

• The Corps of Engineers selected the OD consultants.

• A retreat at a natural site with participants including key managers from home offices, site managers from both the Corps and the contractor.

• Workshop focused on “team-building, action research and planning including advanced conflict resolution methods, development of a shared vision, and strategic planning to demonstrate the utility of group decision making.

• Lists were developed and shared showing both the ‘strengths’ and ‘problems’ of the Corps and the Contractor

PARTNERING – A CASE

• Mixed groups, comprising members from both parties, selected one or more of the problems to diagnose further, identified and evaluated possible courses of action and made recommendations to the total group.

• Mutual commitment to teamwork, equitable problem solving and open communication was made.

• A follow-up workshop was held three months after project began.

• At six months, “on-site data-gathering visits were conducted with follow-up workshops involving all the key players.

PARTNERING - APPRAISAL

• While partnering did not solve all of the problems that surfaced during the life of the various projects, high success rates have been reported, and participants tended to report “better results than on previous non-partnered projects.”

• As a result, partnering has been used on several other large government projects involving the Air Force, Navy, and NASA, and their contractors.

concluding comments…

Intergroup team building , third party peacemaking, the organization mirror and partnering are four major interventions that have been developed to improve intergroup and interpersonal relations.

All these reduce intergroup and interpersonal conflict and improve relationships.

Thank you…..