Effective School Management

Figure 7.1
Possible consequences of intergroup competition

---

MANAGING CONFLICT
103
1
2
3
4
Confrontation
Inevitable
Avoidable
Avoidable
Inevitable
Personal
Agreement
Impossible
Impossible
Possible
Possible
Stakes
Power battle
Frequent
Problem-solving
High
‘communication’
Fool’s paradise
problems and
‘muddles’ which
Avoiding
Arbitration
are more or less
Compromise
frustrating
Smoothing
and lead to
increasing
Postponement
tensions and
stress for all
Inaction
‘Fate’
concerned
Give and take
Low
Figure 7.2
Attitudes to conflict

---

104
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
The attitude most conducive to resolving conflict is, of course, that
suggested in column 4. If the stakes are low or medium, it may not be worth
while for either party to spend time on in-depth problem-solving, and some
quick compromises or give-and-take ‘horse-trading’ may be the answer.
Where problems are a little deeper, however, or where ‘horse-trading’ and
give-and-take are leading to inconsistency and confusion, a more thorough
attempt to solve problems will pay off handsomely in terms both of the
effectiveness of the organization and of reducing the stress on the
protagonists.
As the contents of the columns in Figure 7.2 indicate, your attitude to
conflict in general and/or any particular conflict will condition the approach
that you adopt. If you would like to examine your own approach in greater
depth, you may find the Conflict Orientation Questionnaire (Exercise 4) at
the end of this chapter of help. You can either try to be honest in completing
it about yourself or ask someone who knows you well to complete it for
you. Responsibility charting may also help (p. 280).
PERSONAL APPLICATION
Consider a conflict which exists among two or more people whom you know. List
(1) the issues of interest; and
(2) the emotional or personality aspects of the conflict. Try to describe the attitude
of each towards the conflict.
SOLVING PROBLEMS OF CONFLICT
The first point to make is the obvious one that no party to a conflict can solve
the problem unilaterally. If the attitude of the other party is firmly locked into
columns 1, 2 or 3 of Figure 7.2, the situation may prove impossible and the
only resort may be to face the issues and seek arbitration. If a strong ‘win–
lose’ orientation has been developed, resolution may be complicated by the
fact that any problem-solving approach or concession may be interpreted either
as a sign of weakness (to be exploited to maximum advantage!) or as a subtle
‘ploy’ to be treated with great caution and mistrust.
For these reasons conflict should be recognized and dealt with as early as
possible. If you have a problem with someone, go immediately to talk to him
or her, before acrimony builds up. If you think of the person you least want to
meet and the thing that you least want to do, these are probably your first two
priorities for the day!
If acrimony has built up, it may be necessary to choose your time well and
to spend some time in making it clear that you really do want to solve the
conflict. Some friend of both parties may be needed to act as a catalyst, to
reassure both parties that intentions are sincere and to act as mediator or
‘process consultant’. In conflicts between other members of staff, particularly

---

MANAGING CONFLICT
105
those reporting to you, your job as a manager may well be to step in as the
‘process consultant’, to try to understand the point of view of each
protagonist individually and to bring each one into a ‘problem-solving’ state
of mind. Having set the stage for a meeting to solve the conflict, the following
principles should guide the discussions:
(1) The parties will talk to each other as openly as possible about the real
issues that concern them.
(2) They will state their aims, views and feelings openly but calmly, and try
to avoid reiteration.
(3) They will try to put the conflict into the context of superordinate goals
and of the interest of the total organization (a ‘helicopter’ view). They
will look for common goals.
(4) They will focus on future action rather than on the events of the past.
(5) They will listen carefully to each other’s point of view and seek to
understand it. To ensure that their understanding of it is correct, they
may rephrase the other’s point of view. However, this must be a
genuine attempt at restatement and not a parody of what was said.
(6) They will try to avoid moving on to the attack or defence.
(7) They will try to build on each other’s ideas.
(8) They will trust each other’s good faith and try to act in good faith (see
the ‘OK matrix’ discussed in Chapter 8).
(9) They will plan some clear actions to follow the discussion specifying
who will do what by when. (This is extremely important and may easily
be forgotten in the euphoria of finding that the other party is not as
unreasonable as had been anticipated!)
(10) They will set a date and time to review progress and will keep to this at all
costs.
If a third party is acting as a ‘process consultant’ in such a meeting, his or her
role should not be to comment on the issues (this is a dangerous trap) but
simply to draw attention to any departure from these principles.
A number of useful structures can be used to help individuals or groups to
overcome cultural reluctance to put conflict ‘on the table’. These structures
have the twin values of
(1) enabling strong feelings and prejudices to be expressed in a form which
is less antagonistic than the spoken word. The feelings become factual
(though possibly hurtful) data rather than barbed attacks; and
(2) asking for ‘balance’ in the data, i.e. what we like as well as what we
dislike and what we do as well as what they do.
Two of these structures are set out at the end of this chapter, namely
(1) Role Revision Strategy (Exercise 5); and
(2) Image Exchange (Exercise 6).

---

106
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
HANDLING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS
Conflict and frustration will often centre on the way in which a school, college
or department is being run, ‘the way things happen here’. Such conflicts have
a tendency to build up in any organization, and they can assume more and
more importance. There is often no coherent opinion about how things should
be done – just a generally negative attitude towards the way in which things
are being done.
For the head or head of department, the situation is very frustrating, and
the feeling grows that the staff are working not for you but against you. If you
bend to the suggestions of one body of opinion, another group will be even
less satisfied. You feel misunderstood by everyone and alone in trying to
make the organization work. You may, rightly, feel the need to bring key staff
together to examine the way in which the school or department operates and,
it is hoped, to get commitment to an agreed form of amended practices. The
trouble is that any such meeting can descend into chaos with all the old
arguments and prejudices rehearsed.
Exercise 7 at the end of this chapter presents a structure which has been
found helpful in channelling a review of school organizational practices. It
may be amended to suit particular circumstances, but amendment should
always be towards highlighting controversial issues, never towards avoiding
them. The ‘school review’ uses a number of useful techniques:
(1) ‘Gap’ theory – asking people to state their ideal view and compare it with
their actual perceptions. (The ‘gap’ between the two is what then has to
be bridged.)
(2) Categorizing and quantifying views of what is wrong by focusing
analysis round a structure of statements – always, of course, with the
possibility of formulating a group statement which does not correspond
exactly with any of the alternatives.
(3) Concretizing statements round ‘for instances’. (These should be recorded
in the ‘notes’ column within the exercise.)
The effect of these techniques is to take much of the heat out of the discussion
and to enable deep-seated problems to be treated at a rational level. There is
always a fear that individuals may be hurt by such a process, especially the
head who feels responsible for the processes under review. For this reason it
is important that a review meeting should be instigated from the top of the
group, with a genuine desire to understand people’s feelings. Provided this is
done, members of the group can usually be relied on to have a high concern
for feelings and, as the ‘we’ spirit develops, to be able to compensate for painful
home truths by supportiveness or willingness to put things right. But it is
important to prepare the group by agreeing that the meeting will be based on
the positive principles set out above.
Finally, it is important not to involve too many levels – or too many people
– in such a review. Two levels are ideal. As soon as three or more are involved,
great care has to be taken not to lay all problems unfairly at the door of the

---

MANAGING CONFLICT
107
intermediate level. In a meeting involving head, deputy head and heads of
department, there is real risk that the deputy head will be blamed for
communication failures, for ‘failing to pass on the message’.
PREVENTING UNNECESSARY CONFLICT
Certain behaviours are liable to provoke an unnecessary degree of conflict.
The social policies of the European Union – and many of the member states –
speak of the difference between a ‘harmony model’ and a ‘conflict model’ of
relationships. In the conflict model the parties
(1) are concerned only to protect their own interests. ‘It is the task of
management to manage in the interests of the employer and the job of the
unions to look after the interests of their members’, is a statement made
both by some managers and by some trade unionists, and there is a risk
that teachers who feel that their profession is under governmental attack
(from right or left) may adopt similar attitudes; and
(2) involved in taking or implementing decisions will take up their
positions, make their decision, possibly try to sell them to the other