Page 333 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

316 Chapter 11

FIGURE 11.3
Example of a chart
of pros and cons

third-party arbitration. If this procedure fails, other alternative procedures can be
taken to resolve the conflict issue without producing consensus. Two-sided conflict is
assumed for simplicity.
Generally, when the previously described procedure is followed out of a sincere
desire to resolve the conflict, the group will find at least a compromise and will
develop increased cohesiveness and team spirit. Lacking a consensus or compromise,
other procedures will be needed to reach a decision.

Voting Voting is one such alternative procedure. Naturally, some members are bound
to dislike the outcome, but voting may be a necessary step in overcoming an impasse.
One danger with voting is that the group may arrive at premature closure on an issue.
Be especially careful, if this is the option you select, that the group really is
deadlocked.

Forcing Another option is forcing. Here, the leader breaks the deadlock and decides
on behalf of the group. For example, in the U.S. Senate the presiding officer can break
a tie. As with voting, several members are likely to be disappointed, but in instances in
which an outside group, parent organization, or legitimate authority demands a report
or when the group faces a deadline, a leader may have little choice.

Third-Party Arbitration Third-party arbitration occurs when the group brings in an
outside negotiator to resolve its differences. This typically happens with joint labor–
management disputes and some court-related cases. Arbitrators often have the power
to resolve issues any way they please, from deciding entirely in favor of one party to
splitting the difference between them. Sometimes, just the threat of bringing in a
third-party arbitrator is enough to force conflict participants to negotiate with each
other in good faith. Usually, all parties to the conflict end up feeling dissatisfied.
Thus, third-party arbitration should be proposed only when the leader believes the
group has reached an impasse and the cost of continuing the conflict, including
resentment and the possibility of destroying the group, will exceed the cost of arbitra-
tion. Of course, group members must agree to such a resolution procedure.
Sometimes, no resolution about a group’s issue is possible, but that does not
automatically create a hopeless situation. Even when members cannot agree on basic
values or goals, they often can find some areas in which they do agree. The group may
find a way to come together on some issues and agree to disagree on others.

gal37018_ch11_291_320.indd 316 3/28/18 12:38 PM