Posted: December 2009 by Eric Fast

How does Management, either in the private or public sector, recognize and address a value based identity conflict (VBIC) in the workplace?

As a person that assists in resolving workplace disputes, have you ever encountered a situation that could just not be resolved? Did the individuals involved in the conflict inform you that their dispute was about one thing, but once that issue was addressed, continued their pattern of conflict? More often than not, Managers are asked to deal with employee conflict, but conflict is not always about transactional (items that can be negotiated) issues. Often, the difficult to recognize conflict could be about one or both, or multiple employee’s personal values and/or identity needs.

Value based identity conflicts are about values, identity, or a combination of identity and values, but the indicators for one or both share some overlap. The following is a list of indicators that one or more of the conflicting parties may display that will let you know that the conflict is about values and/or identity rather than what the conflict is claimed to be about.

Indicators of VBIC:

• a conflicting party becomes instantly offended by something the other party has shared;

• a conflicting party is unable to listen or engage in the conflict discussion;

• a conflicting party characterizes another individual or group in value-laden terms (they may also be describing their own values);

• a conflicting party self-identifies or states who they are in the mediation (e.g. being a Christian, Vegetarian, Environmentalist, Democrat);

• a conflicting party attributes an identity to the other party (characterizing the actions or attitudes of the other could state what the accuser values about their own group or personal identity);

• the manager comes to an impasse or stalemate in the process, after making some progress in the conflict (an impasse could signify that identity or values are an important factor contributing to the seeming intractability of the conflict);

• a conflicting party sticks to a word or issue through repetition;

• a conflicting party uses positional statements such as “I’m not going there”;

• a conflicting party uses “trigger” statements that create a noticeable avoidance of an issue;

• a conflicting party has a noticeable physical reaction to what another has said;

• a conflicting party has a verbal or emotional reaction that seems to be greatly out of proportion with the issue that is being presented.

These are just a few of many possibilities that could indicate to a Manager that VBIC issues are present, and that there is a need to delve deeper beneath the transactional issues.

Once you have identified that you are dealing with value and identity based conflict, addressing VBIC is not an easy undertaking. Since value and identity issues are not necessarily rational or logical, one will need to act cautiously with one, both or all of the parties to the conflict. VBIC issues require more flexibility and patience to achieve the goal of resolution. The following is a list of possible strategies a Manager could use to engage in a dialogue about VBIC with one, two, or multiple parties in a conflict. 

Strategies to Address VBIC:

• highlight the shared values and meanings of the conflicting parties;

• create a safe space (to build collaborative connections between conflicting parties, rather than re-solidifying barriers);

• appreciate a full, complex and layered understanding of each parties identity. If the understanding of identity is narrowed to one core value or aspect of one’s identity, the conflicting parties may have trouble moving forward;

• use the skills of naming, unmasking and acknowledging as possible approaches into the discussion of values and identity;

• describe the moment they observed (using non-offensive language) and invite the conflicting parties to discuss this moment. An observed moment could be the physical reaction one had to statement, the unwillingness to engage, or the continued repetition of a word or phrase (to name but a few);

• observe, name and invite the parties to discuss their reactions or behaviours in the mediation (people can be held accountable, to a certain extent, for their behaviours)

• notice the reactions and behaviours of those in conflict and discuss the symptoms of those behaviours (offers an opportunity to discuss deeper issues);

• bring identity to the forefront without labeling it “identity”;

• challenge the ideas, stereotypes and notions the conflicting parties have of the “other,” so they can be rebuilt collaboratively;

• assist in the creation of a common goal or vision for the relationship.

If the parties do not want to go down the path of discussing deeper issues, as a Manager you may need to leave the value based identity conflict issues for a different time, and move on to a more “comfortable” issue in the dispute. If a mediator is going to be successful with the conflicting parties in addressing VBIC issues, it is necessary that parties in conflict have a “desire to engage in resolution, [otherwise] conflict will persist” (Tidwell 1999, 5). It is also important for the conflicting parties to believe that the process, and its creation, is fair. Fairness allows those in conflict to feel comfortable and safe. Lastly, it is important to recognize that, as a Manager, you may be unable to fully assist with an identity or value issue, and the conflicting parties may need to do some work outside of the workplace with a trained professional (psychiatrist, psychologist) before moving forward in the resolution of a conflict with the other party or parties.

Please contact me to further explore this topic particularly if you are engaged in this process or are considering these issues, and look for my book coming out in the New Year, “The Role of Value Based Identity Conflict in Mediation”.