environmental conflicts - resolution through reframing

Environmental Conflicts

Resolution Through Reframing

Contents

• Communications System • Framing Mismatches• Complexity& Leadership • Reframing• Negativity Bias • Summary

Click here for more detail: http://ow.ly/rpX4l

copyright © 2013 [email protected]

http://ow.ly/rpX4l

http://ow.ly/rpX4l

Communications System

• Think of communications as a fluid, recursive system

• Reinforces our own position • Impacts others• Creates homeostasis


(Krippendorff, 1994; Lewicki, et al., 2003; Dewulf, et al., 2005)

Framing Mismatches

• Our communications create frames

“A frame reflects our interpretation of what is going on and how we see ourselves and others implicated in what is happening, enabling us to locate ourselves with respect to that experience. Through framing, we place ourselves in relation to the issues or events - that is, we take a stance with respect to them...”


(Lewicki, et al., 2003, p. 12)

Framing Mismatches > Frame Types

1. Identity

2. Characterization

3. Conflict Management

4. Fact-Finding

5. Social Control

6. Power

7. Risk


Framing Mismatches

• Conflict arises when our frames don’t match: o Environmentalist vs. Developer (identity)o Tree Hugger vs. Climate Changer (characterization)o Regulatory vs. Ad Hoc (conflict management) o Scientist vs. Traditional Knowledge (fact-finding)o Experts vs. Public (social control)o Big Money vs. Little Guy (power frames)o Costs vs. Benefits (risk frames)

• To resolve the conflict, change the frames


(Leweicki, et al, 2003; Davis & Leweicki, 2003; Gray & Putnam, 2003; Vraneski & Richter, 2003; Shmueli & Ben-Gal, 2005)

Complexity & Leadership

• Frame mismatches lead to problem complexity: 1. No definitive formulation 2. No stopping rule 3. Solutions are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad 4. No test of a solution 5. Every solution is a "one-shot operation” 6. No clear set of potential solutions 7. Unique situation 8. Nested loops of problems 9. Numerous conflicting explanations 10. No right to be wrong


(Rittel & Webber, 1973)


• To resolve the conflict, change the frames• To change frames, get leverage on participants• To create leverage, reduce the complexity • To reduce complexity, show leadership

o Administrative forumo Regulatory processo Persuasive participantso Trusted advisorso Moderated engagement



1. No definitive formulation 2. No stopping rule 3. Solutions are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad 4. No test of a solution 5. Every solution is a "one-shot operation” 6. No clear set of potential solutions 7. Unique situation 8. Nested loops of problems 9. Numerous conflicting explanations 10. No right to be wrong


Reframing

• To solve the conflict, change the frames• Frames change when participants:

1. Understand they are part of a communication system 2. Realize what frames are 3. Become aware of their own frames 4. Become aware others’ frames 5. Engage (and grapple) with others’ frames


Methods for engagement:

o Preference Approval Votingo Logrollingo Integrative Bargainingo Q Sort


Reframing

• When communicating options, presentation is key• People focus on the options that are:

o More likely to happeno More negative or dangerous

• When presenting options, focus on the

certain negatives not the

possible benefits


Negativity Bias

(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Curseu & Schruijer, 2007)


Summary

• We communicate inside a system. • Conflicts come from frame mismatches. • Leadership is necessary to remove complexity. • Reframing can solve frame mismatches.• People focus on what is certain, and negative.

Click here for more: http://ow.ly/rpX4l

http://ow.ly/rpX4l

http://ow.ly/rpX4l

[email protected]+1.403.614.4263


Questions?


References

environmental conflicts - resolution through reframing

Business