USE OF REFLECTION AFTER CONFLICT

Let us further imagine that Sue had the conversation with her team members that we present in Table 22.1. In this conversation, Bob has challenged Sue. Sue is not happy with the conversation, so she has met with some colleagues who are using Action Science to develop skills in handling conflicts by analyzing their experiences after they happened.

An Action Science consultant would work with Sue in the following manner. She would help Sue to identify her explicit and implicit intentions for this inter­action. Sue might first identify her goal as one in which she will try to get the best solution to the roadblock, but eventually she might also become aware of conflicting goals, such as to win in her confrontation with Bob. She might also realize that she values looking good in front of her teammates, especially in light of the gender discrimination at the company, and she wants to be respected as a professional. The consultant would help Sue recognize the mismatch between her intentions and outcomes. This mismatch could stimulate a desire to learn a new way of addressing conflicts.

As they review the conflict, the consultant would draw out explicit assump­tions that Sue might be holding about her teammates and her interactions with them in this situation. The consultant would use the ladder of inference to help Sue see how she makes sense of the conflict. The ladder of inference draws out and makes explicit the reasoning that people use in coming to conclusions and

Table 22.1. Sue's Dialog with Her Teammates.

Source: Author.

taking actions. Using the ladder of inference, Sue can begin to see how she uses her own meaning schemas (to use Mezirow’s language) to filter and interpret what she sees in the experience. Table 22.2 illustrates hypothetical ladders of inference for Sue and for Bob.

If these ladders bear any relationship to reality, we can see that Bob and Sue are on a collision course. Their respective framing of the situation will make it very difficult to look for common goals. They are each influenced by deeply held beliefs and values that they have not consciously explored and that may also bring out strong feelings that will probably affect their decisions. Their choices may lead them to take actions that actually create the consequences that they say they do not wish to experience.

Table 22.2. Dueling Ladders of Inference.

Source: Author.

Table 22.3. Mapping One Possible Set of Causal Links in Sue's Case.

Source: Author.

time to map causal links with any degree of accuracy. The consultant has to test that various interpretations actually represent Sue’s viewpoint so that she does not simply project her own meaning schemas on Sue. The consultant could help Sue to see that her interpretations are likely to lead her to the gap she says she wants to avoid between her various stated intentions and the likely outcomes from the interaction.

Underlying beliefs and values—Sue’s, Bob’s, the other teammates,’ and the company’s—are not easily changed even when they might be recognized as unproductive. Using Mezirow’s framework, the consultant could help Sue look in greater depth at the kinds of assumptions that might be influencing her actions. People’s responses often reflect views in the dominant culture. By map­ping out responses and discussing them with others, people can identify deeper patterns that cause conflict, and they may be able to produce a change in the cultural patterns that make it difficult to act in new ways.

For example, when Dr. Karen Watkins at the University of Georgia taught a grad­uate course in Action Science (Marsick and Watkins, 1999), two individuals from different organizations had brought in cases in which sexual harassment was an underlying theme. In the group discussion that ensued, many individuals agreed that this was a significant societal concern. The class mapped these themes from the point of view of common responses, and the way in which these responses would have to change in order to allow greater learning to occur. These maps are shown in Table 22.4. Action Science can help to make public issues that otherwise could not easily be addressed because of potential repercussions.