Chapter5.pdf

Page 129CHAPTER 5: Conflict Management

APPLICABLE PSEL STANDARDS*, †

▪ Standard 2:Ethics and Professional NormsEffective educational leaders act ethically and according to professional norms to promote eachstudent’s academic success and well-being.▪ Standard 3:Equity and Cultural ResponsivenessEffective educational leaders strive for equity of educational opportunity and culturallyresponsive practices to promote each student’s academic success and well-being.▪ Standard 8:Meaningful Engagement of Families and CommunityEffective educational leaders engage families and the community in meaningful, reciprocal, andmutually beneficial ways to promote each student’s academic success and well-being.▪ Standard 9:Operations and ManagementEffective educational leaders manage school operations and resources to promote eachstudent’s academic success and well-being.

It is understandable that an administrator should wish to avoid conflict, especially if a particular

conflict could be disruptive. By trying to avoid all conflict, however, an administrator could be

ignoring or suppressing significant problems or issues that need to be aired if they are to be

ameliorated or resolved. Moreover, as Wexley and Yukl have emphasized, “Interpersonal and

intergroup conflict occur to some extent in all organizations and are a natural part of social

relationships.” The challenge, according to Wynn, “is not to eliminate conflict but to minimize its

destructive impact and make it a positive force in the organization.”

Page 130

To meet this challenge, the administrator will need to engage in conflict management. In

this chapter, conflict management will be broadly defined to address two aspects of the topic.

On one hand, conflict management refers to efforts designed to prevent, ameliorate, or resolve

disagreements between and among individuals and groups. On the other hand, conflict

management may also include efforts by the administrator to initiate conflict—not for its own

sake but because of a need to take an unpopular stand or introduce changes that some will

oppose. Although many readers may perceive the concept of initiating conflict as radical, the

social science literature supports the proposition that in some cases an administrator may need

to take action resulting in possible conflict for an individual or group whose performance has

become complacent or stagnant.

Since many of the conflicts arising in an organization are role conflicts, a discussion of

the basic concepts of role theory will be presented first, as an introduction to conflict

management.

ROLE CONCEPTS

Every administrative position in an effectively managed organization has job descriptions or

policy statements, written and emanating from a governing board, that embody the formal

expectations of the organization. In addition, every organization usually has implicit, frequently

unexpressed expectations for an administrator’s behavior that originate with the various

individuals or groups with whom the administrator comes into contact. Together, both sets of

expectations constitute a behavioral definition of the role different individuals or groups—both

formal and informal—believe the administrator should perform in a particular situation. As

Getzels has observed, “The expectations define for the actor [administrator] . . . what he [or she]

should or should not do” while the actor “is the incumbent of the particular role.” The

expectations, according to Gross and his colleagues, also serve as “evaluative standards

applied to an incumbent in a position,”5 and therefore can represent a powerful source of

potential influence on any administrator’s behavior.

The behavior of an administrator is also affected by personal needs, however, regarding

the role the administrator should play. These needs become the administrator’s

self-expectations and may be more important than the expectations of others in determining the

role to be taken in a given set of circumstances. For example, if an administrator would rather

play the role of manager than instructional leader, most energies will be focused on

administering an efficiently run school, despite the expectations other individuals and groups

have for the administrator to perform the role of instructional leader. Figure 5.1, based on the

Getzels model, illustrates major factors that can influence an individual’s role behavior.6 It

shows that both the institution and the individual, that is, the administrator, are influenced by the

larger culture in the development of their expectations and need dispositions. The model implies

that one source of the administrator’s self-expectations is underlying personal needs. It further

indicates that the administrator’s behavior is affected not only by personal needs but also by the

role expectations held by other relevant individuals and groups. Finally, the model suggests that

the administrator’s behavior is a result of interaction between personal need dispositions and

the role expectations held by others associated with the institution. Based on the Getzels model,

it would appear that, as long as the administrator’s need dispositions are compatible with the

expectations of others, conflict will be minimal. When need dispositions and expectations clash,

role conflict is likely.

Page 131

ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS

The preceding discussion indicates the importance for an administrator of knowing the role

expectations of others. No inference should be drawn that an administrator must conform to

these expectations. As Campbell has noted, “Only by an understanding of these expectations

can the administrator anticipate the reception of specific behavior on his part. Such anticipation

seems necessary if the area of acceptance is to be extended and the area of disagreement

minimized. Moreover, such understandings are necessary if a program of modifying

expectations is to be started.”

Figure 5.2 identifies the various individuals and groups whose expectations may

generate conflict for the administrator.

The need for the administrator to identify and understand the role expectations of others

cannot be overemphasized. Frequently the administrator’s problem is deciding which individual

or group expectations are the most important to ascertain. It is not inconceivable that all the

individuals and groups identified in Figure 5.2 would have an opinion about the way an

administrator should behave with respect to a certain issue. It is neither reasonable nor

practical, however, for the administrator to attempt to discover and understand the expectations

of everyone in the school organization and community. The administrator must, therefore,

concentrate on developing an awareness and understanding of the expectations of those

individuals or groups who may influence the administrator’s effectiveness in some important

regard. If expectations, as previously defined, constitute the “evaluative standards applied to an

incumbent of a position,” the administrator needs to learn the expectations of those individuals

or groups whose evaluation may impair or enhance the administrator’s effectiveness. According

to Gross, role expectations can vary in three basic ways: direction, clarity, and intensity.

Page 132

Direction

The direction of the expectations for the administrator’s role may range along a continuum, from

complete agreement to absolute opposition. The primary factor that seems to determine the

direction of an individual’s or group’s expectations is the nature of the situation that has created

the expectations.

For instance, a decision by an administrator not to involve teachers in considering a

schedule change may completely agree with the teachers’ expectations that it is not necessary

for the principal to secure faculty participation on any decision to change the school’s schedule.

In another situation, concerning a curricular change, however, a decision by the administrator

not to involve teachers in discussing the change may directly conflict with the expectations of

the faculty about the role of the administrator because in the area of curriculum, faculty expects

to be involved on all matters. The critical variable, then, that will typically determine the direction

of an individual’s or group’s expectations is the nature of the situation giving rise to the

expectations.

Clarity

Another aspect of role expectations that the administrator needs to consider is clarity. Since

expectations are frequently unwritten and sometimes unspoken, the administrator may

occasionally be unaware that a particular group holds any role expectations. For example, a

principal may delegate to one assistant the responsibility for working with various student

organizations in the school. In this situation the students of a particular group may expect the

principal, rather than the assistant, to help them. Nevertheless, the circumstances may be such

that the students are reluctant to express their feelings about the role of the principal. As a

result, the principal’s behavior may fail inadvertently to meet their expectations, and problems of

dissatisfaction may be created.

Page 133

Intensity

The third dimension of role expectations identified by Gross is intensity.11 In a given situation, a

group may expect that the administrator absolutely must act in a certain way or perhaps should

act in a certain way. It is clearly in the best interest of the administrator to assess accurately the

intensity of an individual’s or a group’s expectations. An expectation that it is absolutely

essential for the administrator to play a particular role that carries markedly different implications

for behavior than one based on the feeling that perhaps action on an issue should be taken.

WINDOW ON DIVERSITY

Conflict Management

BORDER CROSSING FOR EFFECTIVE SCHOOLING IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

For effective schooling in the twenty-first century, school administrators must be attuned to thecomplexities of the changing demographics as well as to the needs of those persons whohave been traditionally excluded from the core of educational reform (Capper, 1993). Giventhe increasing demands of meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse studentsand the communities they live in, it is imperative that we now effectively “cross borders.”These borders include but are not limited to ethnic, cultural, religious, racial, linguistic, ability,and socioeconomic factors. While homogeneity is good for milk (Paley, 1979), it is no longeran appropriate criterion to determine what is effective for teaching or administrative leadershipin today’s diverse schools. As Ladson-Billings (2001) noted, there is an incredible range ofdiversity in today’s schools. This is further emphatically supported by Hanson and Avery(2000) as they noted the following:

Making student diversity central to all aspects of the school experience compelsadults—administrators, teachers, parents, non-certified staff, and members ofthe community—to be constantly mindful of the consequences of their actionsand decisions especially on categorical groupings of students for historical,political, and social reasons. (p. 119)

Organizations must now become more efficacious to better prepare for cultural diversity.Exemplars from business can be found in the marketability of particular products asdemographics (racial and economic) create new customer markets. In this climate,opportunities continue to arise for niche marketing to ethnic, economic, and other groups(National Multicultural Institute, 1997). This niche marketing is focused, targeted, monitored,and adaptable. Educational organizations should now be preparing their “market” strategies tobetter serve these growing diverse populations in an effort to create focused culturallyrelevant teaching, target and equitable distribution of resources, and adaptability to theever-increasing school diversity. This diversity is not just relegated to the incoming populationof school-age children, but also to those who will teach them and work with them on a dailybasis. To that end, educational leaders will be challenged to secure qualified individuals toprovide more innovative approaches, solving both culturally induced organizational problemsand meeting the workplace learning needs of minority individuals and groups (Saldana,Norwood, and Alston, 2003; Martin and Ross-Gordon, 1990). Conversely, diverse studentswill be inadequately served by teachers and staff trained in outmoded techniques, led byadministrators with mimetic approaches. From this standpoint, it will be imperative for currentadministrative training to be reformed with cultural and linguistic diversity as indispensablecore components, not just as an “add-on” but also as a part of the nucleus for effectiveschooling training in this new century.

Page 134Because we all experience the world through our own eyes, experiences, and perceptions,we, as educators (teachers, counselors, administrators, etc.), must understand that thosechildren who come to our public schools each day also view the world from their unparalleledlived experiences. It is imperative for educators to have some understanding about the largerissues related to diversity—that is, racism, classism, sexism, and other oppressions (Pohan,1996)—and how families from marginalized groups view education (Weiner, 1993). Expandingon this notion, Sarason (1990) stated:

First, you must understand and digest the fact that children—all children—cometo school motivated to enlarge their worlds. You start with their worlds. You do not

look at them, certainly not initially, as organisms to be modified and regulated.You look at them to determine how what they are, seek to know, and haveexperienced can be used as the fuel to fire the process for enlargement ofinterest, knowledge, and skills. You do not look at them in terms of deficits. . . .You enter their world in order to aid them and you try to build bridges betweentwo worlds, not walls. (p. 164)

In studying the multiple worlds of students and the transitions (“border crossing”) that theymake daily as they attempt to participate in the American public schooling experience,Phelan, Davidson, and Yu (1991) found four patterns for cultural border crossing:

Type I Type II Type III Type IV

Congruent worldsSmooth transitions

Different worldsBorder crossingsmanaged

Different worldsBorder crossingsdifficult

Different worldsBordersimpenetrable

● Type I: Students’ worlds in school and out of school are parallel. While circumstancesmay change daily, students perceive the boundaries to be manageable.

● Type II: Students’ worlds in school and out of school are complete opposites.However, the borders between the two worlds do not prevent students from crossingor adapting to different ways.

● Type III: Like Type II, students’ worlds in school and out of school are completeopposites; however, students in this block find it difficult to cross the borders.

● Type IV: Here students will actively or passively resist border crossing.

Students cross borders daily as they synthesize home, community, and the world of school.As a part of this border crossing, educators play an integral role with regard to academic andsocial achievement. Students’ engagement with schools and learning is predicated upon theinterrelationships of their family, peer, and school worlds (Phelan, Davidson, and Yu, 1991).Through public education, children may have the opportunities to navigate borders related tosocial, political, personally constructed contexts as “borderlands” (Martinez, 1998). However,far too often, children are found impeded in transcending borders, trapped to be in Types IIIand IV, particularly now in the twenty-first century when societal technological advancement isincongruent with traditional, “old school” pedagogy. In many cases, students and parents viewthe school as a foreign land, alienated or at best moving toward assimilation with theorganization.

Page 135

Source:Alston, J. A., “The Many Faces of American Schooling: Effective Schools Research and Border Crossing in the 21st Century,”American Secondary Education (vol. 32, no. 9, 2004), pp. 79–93.Capper, C. (Ed.)., Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society (New York: SUNY Press, 1993).Hanson, K., and Avery, M. P., “Valuing Diversity in Schools: Transforming Education through Humanistic Policy, Pedagogy, andPractice,” in M. Leicester, C. Modgil, and S. Modgil (Eds.), Institutional Issues: Pupils, Schools and Teacher Education (London:Falmer Press, 2000), pp. 119–127.Jennings, J., “Training Leaders for Multiracial and Multi-ethnic Collaboration.” Trotter Review, (vol. 8, no. 2, 1994), pp., 4–6.Ladson-Billings, G., Crossing Over to Canaan: The Journey of New Teachers in Diverse Classrooms (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2001).Marshall, P. L., Cultural Diversity in Our Schools (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2002).Martin, L. G., and Ross-Gordon, J. M. (Eds.), Serving Culturally Diverse Populations (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1990).

Martinez, O. J., Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.–Mexico Borderlands (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1998).Maxcy, S. J., “Preparing School Principals for Ethno-democratic Leadership.” International Journal of Leadership in Education(vol. 1, no. 3, 1998), pp., 217–235.National Multicultural Institute (1997). Facts about Diversity. Accessed online, http://www.nmci.org, January 30, 2004.Paley, V., White Teacher (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979).

Page 136Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., and Yu, H. C., “Students’ Multiple Worlds: Navigating the Borders of Family, Peer, and SchoolCultures,” in P. Phelan and A. L. Davidson (Eds.), Renegotiating Cultural Diversity in American Schools (New York: TeachersCollege Press, 1991), pp. 52–88.Pohan, C. A. “Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs about Diversity: Uncovering Factors Leading to Multicultural Responsiveness.” Equityand Excellence in Education (vol. 29, no. 3, 1996), pp., 62–68.Saldana, D. C., Norwood, P. M., and Alston, J. A., “Investigating Teachers’ Unconscious Person Perceptions and Stereotyping ofCulturally Diverse Individuals.” Educators for Urban Minorities (vol. 2, no. 2, 2003), 57–73.Sarason, S. B., The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course Before it’s too Late? (San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1990).Tyson, C., “A Response to ‘Coloring epistemologies’: Are Our Qualitative Research Epistemologies Racially Biased?”Educational Researcher (vol. 27), pp. 21–23.Weiner, L., Preparing Teachers for Urban Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 1993).

For example, in regard to an administrator’s role in initiating a program to improve

student behavior, the expectation by parents that the principal should perhaps initiate a

program, which differs in intensity and carries different behavioral implications than an

expectation that such a program is essential and therefore must be initiated. In the first instance,

the administrator will probably feel very little pressure from the parents and may be able to act

appropriately, with no repercussions. If the administrator ignores the expectations of parents

when they believe that a program should be started to improve student behavior, however,

parents may complain, and the principal’s status in the community may suffer. If the principal

attempts to ignore parental expectations when parents feel that a program is essential, these

parents may attempt to impose whatever negative sanctions or pressures they can command in

order to make the principal comply.

The problem faced by most administrators in this kind of a situation is that it is usually

more difficult to determine the intensity of a group’s expectations than the direction of those

expectations, since the former characteristic may not be explicit or public. This obstacle points

to the need for all administrators to engage in continuous efforts to ascertain the intensity of the

expectations of individuals and groups with whom they work.

FOUR SOURCES OF SOCIAL CONFLICT IN SCHOOLS

In another study on managing conflict, Lindelow and Scott outline the types and sources of

social conflicts, a prevalent occurrence in schools. They view social conflict as conflict between

individuals and conflict between groups common to the school environment. The authors

identify four primary sources of social conflict within the school: communication problems,

organizational structure, human factors such as personality, and limited resources.

Page 137

Poor communication is a major cause of conflicts. For example, teachers who do not

receive regular feedback about performance may have poor morale and negative attitudes,

resulting in an unwillingness to respond to administrative directives.

The type of organizational structure also has a direct effect on conflicts. Schools in which

the administration encourages empowerment will have more frequent conflicts, although minor.

With more people involved in making decisions, more opinions, interests, wants, and needs are

likely to be voiced. Major disruptive conflicts lessen, however, as empowerment increases,

because the more the staff participates in decision making, the greater the opportunities to

express minor conflicts. Such an airing of grievances in the early stages of disagreement can, in

turn, prevent minor problems from snowballing into major incidents.

Human factors, specifically personality incompatibilities and different values and goals,

are Lindelow and Scott’s third category of sources of social conflict; and these cannot be

eliminated by an administrator. They must be properly managed, however.

Competition over limited resources is the fourth source of conflict, according to Lindelow

and Scott. For example, conflict results when teachers fail to get raises they think they deserve

or when the science department fails to get desired equipment. The administrator’s job is to

assure all groups that they have been treated fairly in resource distribution, thus preventing

unnecessary conflict of this kind.

CONFLICT INITIATION

No doubt most administrators would like to prevent conflict from occurring. However, in some

situations an administrator may not only be unable to prevent conflict but also actually find it

necessary to initiate action that results in conflict with another individual or group. Usually these

circumstances come about because a particular individual or group is not performing as well as

expected and does not want to change. The theoretical and research literature on initiating

conflict is limited. The ideas in this section are based primarily on an analysis by Robbins and

on insights developed from the authors’ experiences as administrators.

For example, a principal has observed a teacher who is ineffective in motivating

students. In a follow-up conference, the teacher does not perceive a problem and believes a

good job of teaching is occurring. To further complicate the matter, suppose that the teacher is

tenured, a leader in the union, and an individual with a very strong personality. At this point, the

principal could retreat and refrain from discussing the problem that was observed in the

teacher’s classroom. If the principal is to fulfill the responsibilities of an educational leader, the

problem may need to be directly presented, which could create a conflict with the teacher. (It

should be emphasized that in this context, conflict is not inevitable; much will depend on the

principal’s approach in working with the teacher.) Nevertheless, the scenario presented thus far

suggests that total avoidance of any type of conflict between the principal and teacher may not

be easy, and initiating conflict may be necessary to reduce the complacency of the teacher and,

ultimately, to bring about improvement.

Page 138

Administrators must, of course, carefully consider all the possible ramifications before

initiating conflict. The administrator will want to be reasonably sure that the problem needing to

be addressed is sufficiently serious to warrant intervention and that approaches to solve the

problem without arousing conflict are tried first (see Chapter 3, “Authority, Power, and

Influence”). Also, it will be important for an administrator to delay initiating conflict with an

individual or group, if possible, when the administrator is already involved in other kinds of

conflicts that may drain emotions and energies. Too much conflict will impair the administrator’s

effectiveness. Assuming that the latter is not the case, and that an individual or group does not

respond to other approaches the administrator has tried, then conflict may need to be

introduced.

In initiating conflict the administrator should begin with the lowest possible profile.

Anticipating and preparing for possible negative reactions will be essential. Generally, when

individuals or groups are informed of a problem they do not want to address, they will become

defensive. When this happens, the administrator should discuss the problem as calmly as

possible. This may not be easy, because an individual or group that becomes defensive could

grow antagonistic and hostile, thereby stirring the administrator’s own emotions. It is a

challenging test of self-control to remain calm and rational in the face of a defensive reaction;

the administrator should make every effort to do so, and to persist in focusing individual or group

attention on the problem and its possible solution.

Although research and theory are limited regarding how best to ameliorate or resolve a conflict,

Gross has theorized that when an individual is faced with a role conflict, there are four pathways

to resolution:

1. The individual conforms to the expectations of Group A.

2. The individual conforms to the expectations of Group B.

3. The individual performs some compromise behavior that represents an attempt to

conform, in part, to both sets of expectations.

4. The individual attempts to avoid conforming to either set of expectations.

A fifth alternative identified in a replication of the Gross study is the possibility of the

administrator resolving conflict by actively trying to change the direction or intensity of one or

both sets of expectations.

If these, then, are the options available to an administrator who is faced with role conflict,

which alternative should be chosen? Based on an investigation into the ways the

superintendents resolve their role conflicts, Gross has theorized that three conditions determine

how a role conflict will be resolved:

1. The administrator’s feeling about the legitimacy of each of the role expectations that is in

disagreement. (Legitimacy in this context is defined as the perceived right of an

individual or group to expect the administrator to play a certain role.)

2. The administrator’s perception of the negative sanctions that the administrator may

suffer for nonconformity to one set of expectations, as compared to another.

3. The administrator’s primary orientation to either legitimacy or sanctions as a justifiable

basis for resolving a role conflict.

Illustrative of the application of Gross’s theory of role conflict is the principal who, when faced

with a conflict of expectations between teachers and students with regard to the principal’s role

in student discipline, decides to conform to the teachers’ expectations because of a greater

concern for their reactions. In this set of circumstances, the administrator resolves this role

conflict based on the perception of the sanctions that might result from failure to conform to the

expectations of the teachers. The legitimacy of the students’ expectations is not a consideration

for this principal.

Page 139

The reader may feel that a principal should try to base resolution of role conflict on the

legitimacy of each group’s expectations. Conditions can develop, however, that will not allow the

sanctions of a group to be ignored. For example, an administrator may feel the members of a

group have no “right” to expect the administrator’s behavior to conform to their expectations. Yet

if the group’s power is such that it can disrupt or create problems within the school system, the

principal may agree to adhere to its expectations to prevent serious difficulties from arising.

While the legitimacy of each group’s expectations should be given primary consideration by an

administrator in resolving a role conflict, the sanctions a group can bring to bear for failure to

fulfill expectations cannot be overlooked. An accurate understanding on the part of the

administrator of both the legitimacy of the role expectations and the potency of the sanctions

associated with noncompliance is essential for the successful resolution of any role conflict.

OTHER APPROACHES TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Gross’s model of role conflict resolution identifies some of the basic factors that may influence

an administrator in attempting to resolve a role conflict. This model does not, nor was it intended

to, indicate the best way to resolve a role conflict. Neither does it address itself to the problem of

how an administrator can best resolve conflict arising between two or more individuals or groups

who are associated with the school, for example, students versus teachers, teachers versus

parents, and students versus parents. Since role and school conflicts seem to be associated

with the job of the administrator, it would appear desirable to suggest additional possible

techniques that an administrator may consider for managing role or group conflict.

Four Ways of Dealing with Conflict

Barker, Tjosvold, and Andrews, for example, describe four approaches to conflict management:

cooperative, confirming, competitive, and avoiding. The cooperative approach emphasizes

mutual group goals, understanding others’ views, and compromising to create a mutually useful

solution. The confirming approach stresses the importance of communicating mutual respect for

group members’ competence, whereas the competitive approach sees conflict as a win-lose

battle in which others must be persuaded or coerced into submission. Finally, avoidance occurs

when people withdraw from discussing problems or smooth over differences quickly without

really resolving them.

Page 140

Administrative Effectiveness Using the Different Approaches

Results of research done by Barker and his colleagues confirm that administrators who use a

combination of cooperative and confirming approaches are much more successful in conflict

management than are those using a competitive-avoidance approach. Administrators who use a

cooperative approach also use a confirming approach. (Neither approach was used exclusively;

the two were used always in conjunction with one another.) The authors suggest that perhaps

this is because confirmation of competence brings a feeling of security, promoting a cooperative

conflict mode by allowing team members to take risks. On the other hand, administrators who

use a combination of competitive and avoidance approaches to conflict management are seen

as extremely ineffective. “Presumably these managers went back and forth between the two

approaches, competing when they thought they could win and avoiding when they were

uncertain.” The authors recommend that in cases where leaders do not possess the necessary

interpersonal skills to use a cooperative and confirming approach, a member of the group who

has these skills should be designated to act as a “communication facilitator and group

maintenance leader.”

How Conflict Management Techniques Are Selected

While the theoretical literature on conflict management strongly recommends a contingency

approach—that is, the selection of the most appropriate techniques for managing a conflict

should depend on the nature of the situation—some evidence suggests administrators may be

more influenced by their own personalities in selecting a technique for conflict management

than by any other factor. For example, the authoritarian person would appear more likely to

select a unilateral, power-based technique for managing a conflict, whereas the cooperative,

people-oriented individual would seem more likely to select a joint problem-solving technique. (It

should be emphasized that research on the relationship between personality and conflict

management is limited, and the findings are only tentative.)

Although an administrator needs to consider individual personal needs in selecting a

conflict management technique, the main factor that should determine selection is the nature of

the conflict situation itself. As Schmuck and Runkel have emphasized, the method an

administrator should select for managing a conflict ought to “depend on the type of conflict, the

intensity of the disagreement, the persons participating in the conflict, the seriousness of the

issues for them, and the authority, resources and knowledge they possess.” While this

approach, referred to as the contingency method, takes into consideration an administrator’s

personality, it also considers other characteristics and factors in the conflict situation. For

example, Utley, Richardson, and Pilkington found in their research that when administrators

attempted to resolve interpersonal conflict, personality factors played less of a role than did

situational or conflict target factors such as a professor, parent, or friend. Since the kinds of

conflict situations that an administrator may encounter are likely to differ, a number of alternate

techniques for managing conflict will be presented.

Power Struggle Bargaining

If the administrator is in a situation where conflict is inevitable, agreement or compromise

between parties in conflict is impossible, and the achievement of the administrator’s objectives

in the conflict are extremely important, then the administrator is likely to engage in what is

referred to by Blake and his colleagues as power struggle bargaining. In other words, the

administrator will do everything possible to resolve the conflict in the administrator’s favor. This

includes refusing to concede the legitimacy of any aspect of the other party’s position and

downgrading that position. It also involves refusing to compromise any aspect of the

administrator’s position and rationalizing any shortcomings in that position. This type of conflict

resolution is seen all too frequently during the collective bargaining process in public education.

Page 141

The disadvantages of power struggle bargaining as a method of resolving conflict are

that the process used can be destructive to the personal and professional relationships of those

involved, and the conflict is often only temporarily and superficially resolved. Conflicts that

appear to be resolved by power struggle bargaining frequently resurface later, perhaps in a

different form, but based on the same old antagonisms that were exacerbated during the

previous bargaining sessions.

The main advantage to the administrator of this type of conflict resolution is the

possibility of it resulting totally in the administrator’s favor. Whether this occurs or not largely

depends on the accuracy of the administrator’s assessment of possessing more authority,

power, or influence than the other party to the conflict so that the conflict can be resolved

favorably. At best, this is a tricky assessment for anyone to make, and miscalculations can be

disastrous. Power struggle bargaining may be necessary in certain situations, but the

administrator should carefully examine the validity of the assumptions about the extent of

authority, power, and influence relative to the other party to the conflict, as well as the likelihood

of compromise and the long-range effects that power struggle bargaining may exert on

interpersonal relationships.

Conflict Avoidance Methods

At the opposite pole from power struggle bargaining is a set of techniques for resolving a conflict

that can be characterized as “conflict avoidance” methods. Blake and his colleagues have

identified four such methods: (1) withdrawal, (2) indifference, (3) isolation, and (4) “smoothing

over.” An example of the use of withdrawal is the administrator who, in a meeting with a

superior, gets involved in an argument over a directive for the school that is felt to be not in the

best interest of either students or teachers. Rather than pursuing the matter, however, the

administrator withdraws from the conflict and accepts the directive. In the same situation, an

administrator employing the use of indifference as a method of conflict resolution would not

have argued about the matter in the first place but would have acted as though the issue did not

really matter. The administrator who utilizes isolation as a technique would have tried to avoid

any circumstances of conflict with a superior. And, in the case of smoothing over, the

administrator would have accepted the directive from the superior while emphasizing the

elements of agreement on the issue, rather than disagreement, and, in general, would have

tried to minimize any discord between the two.

Consensus

Seeking consensus, writes Lucas, is another way to minimize fragmentation. With this

technique, people have the opportunity to discuss their views and attempt to persuade others.

The skills of listening and paraphrasing what was heard promote understanding. Consensus is

reached when one viewpoint is preferred over the others by the group as a whole. The essential

points are trust that the group is choosing its position for the good of the organization and an

understanding that all members’ views are listened to and respected. The advantages are

enhanced group cohesiveness and increased commitment to decisions made. The largest

disadvantage is that this process can be considerably time-consuming. Therefore, leaders must

be selective about when to utilize this process.

Page 142

Avoidance Techniques Evaluated

Avoidance techniques do not resolve conflict but rather circumvent it. They may be necessary in

situations if the other party clearly possesses the authority, power, or influence to force an

opponent’s will and/or if negative consequences would result from a more active or aggressive

approach. Avoidance methods are typically employed when an individual or group feels

somewhat powerless, apathetic, or disillusioned about the likelihood of bringing about change in

the other party.

PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH

Another method of conflict resolution is the problem-solving approach. It is the approach that

seems to be the most effective means of resolving many conflicts. It is based on the

assumptions that the parties to the conflict are people of worthy motives and goodwill, that

agreement is possible, that each party has something valuable to contribute to the process of

resolving the conflict, and that final resolution need not ignore basic interests of all sides.

Mattson details seven tips to deal with team/group conflict:

1. Acknowledge the Conflict—Avoid anger buildups by facing the conflict head-on and

letting your teammates know you disagree with their course of action. While not always

pleasant, getting these small disagreements out in the open can help head off future

disputes.

2. Stop and Cool Off—Take a minute to think through the course of action you would like to

pursue. Avoid destructive behaviors like:

● Pointing fingers

● Insults

● Ultimatums and rigid demands

● Defensive attitudes

● Complaining behind teammates’ backs

● Making assumptions about others behaviors

3. Clarify Positions—Let everyone voice his or her opinions on the conflict and be heard.

While people are explaining their viewpoints on the issue in question, practice active

listening. Pay attention and refrain from jumping to conclusions.

4. List Facts and Assumptions Based on Each Position—Once each team member has

been allowed to explain their stance on the conflict, list out the facts and assumptions

that have been made.

5. Break into Smaller Groups and Separate Existing Alliances—Many times, friendships in

the workplace can cloud judgments in team projects. By breaking up existing alliances

when discussing the final team positions, you often avoid this behavior and allow people

to view conflicts free of persuasion.

6. Reconvene the Groups—Resolution becomes much easier once these steps have been

followed and the team meets again as a whole.

7. Celebrate the Resolution as a Team—Acknowledge specific contributions from

individuals in the group. The “celebration” can be a congratulatory e-mail or an afternoon

off as a reward, recognizing the success promotes team bonding.

Page 143

“Constructive conflict can bring a team closer together if handled properly. Respecting and

appreciating your coworker’s differences is key to building a strong team. Resolving conflict

when it does arise in a quick and proficient fashion helps maintain a strong and healthy team

environment. Remaining open to differing beliefs and ideas is vital, and learning to view conflicts

from a coworker’s perspective will help you become a more effective team member.”

Early Identification

Tjosvold contends that “all organizations try to avoid social conflict,” and there is observational

evidence to support his contention. In general, conflict is not viewed as a desirable state of

affairs, and consequently people tend to avoid it as long as they can. Although a potential or

minor conflict may become worse and eventually develop into a major crisis, the attitude of

many administrators seems to be, “Why kick sleeping dogs?”

While it is true that too much attention to a minor conflict may cause it to loom larger in

everyone’s eyes than it deserves, and a lack of attention may end a problem, the opposite

consequences can also occur, and when they do, they are likely to be more significant. By

failing to identify and take appropriate action at an early stage of a potential or minor conflict, an

administrator risks the very real possibility that the conflict may become worse. By the time the

administrator is forced to take action, the conflict may be very difficult to resolve. As Wynn has

observed, “The most tragic instances of school conflict are usually those in which the conflict

reaches the advanced stages before administrators respond to it.” Clearly an important first step

in conflict resolution is to identify potential or minor problems at an early stage before they

further deteriorate and become unmanageable.

Additional conflict can be prevented by addressing it in its early stages. Kirtman and

Minkoff propose following a seven-step systems approach to analyzing and acting upon conflicts

that arise from implementing new initiatives.

STEP 1 Examine how the organizational vision is affected by the conflict, and list the

steps needed for realignment.

STEP 2 Identify the formal and informal leaders of the initiative, and show how the conflict

is affecting them.

STEP 3 Examine the situation and identify the key participants and their roles.

STEP 4 Develop strategies that will modify the affected processes and procedures of the

organization into greater alignment with its vision.

STEP 5 Determine how the organization’s culture and history influence the initiative and

their effect on the conflict.

STEP 6 Factor the results of steps 1–5 into an implementation plan.

STEP 7 Establish a monitoring and evaluation process.

The authors caution that any stage of this process contains the possibility for conflict or the

breakdown of trust.

Page 144

Diagnosis and the Importance of Trust

Once an administrator has identified a conflict, the causes need to be diagnosed. In other

words, the reason or reasons for the disagreement or dispute must be investigated, for,

according to Chanin and Schneer, a conflict may be caused by “incompatible goals, ideas,

values, behaviors, or emotions.”

Exercising Caution in Diagnosing the Conflict

In diagnosing which factors are causing a conflict, it will be important, if the conflict involves the

administrator, to try to avoid the natural inclination to assume the other party is wrong. Rather,

the administrator’s attitude and actions should be based on the assumption that there may be

merit in the expectations or positions held by others, and the administrator should try to

understand the reasons for these feelings.

Acting as a Mediator

Understanding the basis for a conflict is also important for the administrator who hopes to

resolve a dispute between two or more other individuals or groups. In this kind of situation, the

administrator’s role is that of mediator. Before an administrator can effectively mediate between

two or more parties, there must be accurate and complete understanding of the way in which

each side perceives the other and the way each side perceives the main issue that has created

the conflict. Without accurate and complete information on these two variables, the

administrator may inadvertently exacerbate a conflict rather than ameliorate it. As Wynn points

out, “Perhaps 90 percent of all human conflict could be satisfactorily resolved if the major parties

would take the time to talk and listen.”

Building Trust

In this early stage of working with the parties to a conflict, it is extremely important for the

administrator to develop and maintain an attitude of acceptance and trust on the part of all

concerned. If an administrator is to act as a mediator (or in some related role in resolving the

conflict), then the participants in the conflict need to accept that role, and to trust that the

administrator will act fairly and constructively. It needs to be emphasized that this trust and

acceptance will not be easy to earn if the administrator is perceived as favoring one side over

another or as possessing a particular vested interest. Objectivity, impartiality, and good human

relations skills are essential qualities for anyone attempting to gain the acceptance or trust of

others.

Helping Conflicting Parties Respect One Another

It is also important that the administrator begin working on developing mutually positive attitudes

on the part of the participants in a conflict. This obviously will be challenging. There is evidence

that disputants tend to view each other in nonobjective, hostile, and emotional terms. In many

situations the mentality of the participants is expressed in the “them versus us” form, and the

other side is viewed as the “enemy.” The difficulty of changing the attitude of the participants to

a conflict in no way negates its importance, however, for until the various parties to a dispute

can begin to view each other in a more positive light, compromise and eventual resolution of the

conflict will probably not be possible.

Page 145

Meeting Each Party Separately

Because the parties to a conflict are likely to have a negative attitude toward each other, it is

recommended that the administrator acting as a mediator attempt, in the early stages of trying

to resolve the conflict, to meet with each side separately to the extent possible. If the

administrator brings together the various parties to a conflict before working with them

separately, they may only continue to engage in conflict-provoking behavior that could worsen

the situation. The mere presence of conflicting parties together at a meeting may intensify an

already emotionally charged situation. By meeting with them separately in the initial stages, the

administrator will have a better opportunity to begin persuading each side to think and behave

more rationally and to view each other more positively. Crouch and Yetton write that

administrators with good conflict management skills should bring subordinates together to solve

conflicts. Those with poor conflict management skills, however, should not try to resolve conflict

by bringing subordinates together since this will only create reduced employee performance.

Further, Crouch and Yetton recommend conflict management training for both managers and

subordinates.

Turning Down the Heat

In attempting to resolve a conflict, the administrator would do well to ignore the extreme rhetoric

used by those involved in a dispute. People who are embroiled in a conflict are usually

frustrated and are likely to become angry and immoderate in their speech or writing.

Recommendations may be expressed as demands, epithets may be hurled, and ultimatums

may be presented. Such extreme behavior may either be a part of a strategy to intimidate others

or, as suggested earlier, simply be a result of frustration. Regardless of the reasons for the

extreme rhetoric, the administrator should attempt to maintain an objective and professional

attitude toward the disputants. This may be a difficult task, particularly if the administrator is the

focus of such rhetoric. Administrator reactions that may escalate the conflict are to be avoided.

Fact-Finding

After the administrator has ascertained how the parties to a dispute view each other and the

issue in question, the facts need to be validated in the situation. While it is true that the

perceptions people hold represent “the facts” from their point of view, those “facts” need to be

verified. There is evidence suggesting that people in conflict tend to present their side in a totally

favorable light and the other side in a totally negative light.39 They may not be doing this

intentionally, and they may be very sincere in their representations. All too frequently, however,

their emotions have distorted their perceptions and memory. Therefore, it is essential that the

administrator attempt to validate the information from the various parties to a conflict rather than

accepting the information at face value. For example, which statements by the conflicting parties

rest on assumptions and which are based on evidence solidly grounded in reality? What are the

additional facts that, thus far, the parties to the dispute have been unaware of or have failed to

take into account?

At this stage the administrator needs to recognize that although people in conflict may

ultimately agree on the facts in a situation, they may, nevertheless, fail to reach accord in their

interpretations of the facts. For instance, agreement may eventually be reached by a group of

parents and the superintendent that the attitude of the school board members, rather than that

of the superintendent, is currently the main barrier to initiating a proposed program of

community involvement. The parents and the superintendent, however, may continue to

disagree about their interpretations of the problem. The parents may conclude the administrator

should play a more active role in trying to change the school board’s attitude toward community

involvement, while the superintendent, as the school board’s representative, may believe the

school board to be the one that should try to change the attitude of the parent group. At one

level, the parents and the administrator all agree that the school board is the main barrier to

achieving community involvement, but they continue to disagree about what should be done in

light of this obstacle.

Page 146

The goal of the administrator in fact-finding should be to clarify and broaden the areas of

agreement and to narrow the issues of disagreement. If the administrator is not one of the

parties to the dispute, it will be easier to play the role of mediator in reaching this goal. If the

administrator is personally involved in the disagreement, an outside resource person may need

to be called in for assistance in mediating the conflict.

Developing an Integrative Solution

Long-lasting conflict resolution seldom occurs when one party to a dispute makes all of the gain

while the needs of the other party have not been accommodated in some way. The

administrator needs to recognize that a conflict between individuals or groups will seldom be

permanently resolved if some parties feel they were the only losers in the resolution of the

conflict. The administrator should, therefore, try to develop a conflict resolution in which there

are no clear-cut winners or losers.

To achieve this result may require compromise on the part of everyone involved in the

conflict. Before the administrator attempts to persuade the disputants to compromise, a

resolution to the conflict that would meet the needs of all sides should be explored. This type of

conflict resolution is referred to in the social science literature as an “integrative solution.” It

involves ascertaining the needs and objectives of all parties to the conflict and trying to develop

a solution in which all the parties could meet their needs and objectives in a way that would not

require the others to sacrifice their needs and objectives.

The integrative solution in most conflict situations will not be easy to achieve because it

requires considerable creativity and persistence on the part of the conflict mediator, and

open-mindedness and flexibility on the part of all those involved in the conflict. It is the ideal

solution, however, and the one most likely to result in a permanent resolution of the conflict.

Developing a Basis for Compromise

In many situations the integrative solution will not be possible, and compromise on the part of

one or more parties to the conflict will be necessary.

Compromise Is Not Weakness

A major obstacle to developing a compromise resolution is that the participants may feel that to

compromise is to appear weak and ineffective and that compromising may reduce the chances

of achieving their goals. In our society, winning a victory is a more attractive result than

compromise. The very term “compromise” has a mixed, or even a negative, connotation to many

people. For these reasons, the administrator may encounter resistance to attempts to help both

sides see the need for compromise. The approach of the administrator should be to show the

participants that without compromise, their conflict is unlikely to be resolved. This won’t be easy,

but an attempt must be made because the alternatives of a stalemate or heightening of the

conflict are likely and undesirable.

True Compromise Is Not One-Sided

Assuming the various parties to a dispute can be made to see that compromise is needed to

resolve the conflict, an understanding also needs to be reached that it will probably be

necessary for both sides to compromise. Typically, individuals or groups who are in conflict do

not think about the need to modify their own position but assume that the other party is the one

who should or must change. It is unlikely that either side to a dispute will change without the

assurance that the other side will also agree to compromise. Since in many circumstances each

side is convinced it is right and the other side is wrong, the administrator may have difficulty in

persuading those who are involved that there must be give and take on both sides before

progress can be made in resolving the conflict. Nevertheless, the mediator must attempt to

develop this understanding on the part of both sides if resolution of the conflict is to be

accomplished.

Page 147

Implications Must Be Recognized

Another important prerequisite to an acceptable solution to a disagreement is an understanding

by both sides of the full implications of their own point of view, as well as the full implications of

the other side’s position. While both parties may clearly understand their own position, they

often fail to recognize the full ramifications of their demands or their stand on a particular issue

in relation to the other disputants. Frequently, by showing how one group’s demands will affect

the other party, the mediator can clarify to all concerned why certain actions are unacceptable or

not possible.

Opposing Points of View Must Be Understood

Undoubtedly, a major deterrent to the successful resolution of a conflict is a lack of

understanding of the opposite point of view on the part of one or more sides to a dispute.

Usually the parties in conflict concentrate most of their energies and attention on presenting and

arguing the merits of their own position and consequently do not spend sufficient time trying to

understand the way the other side looks at the issue. A useful technique that can be employed

to reveal this problem is to ask all parties to state the supporting rationale and main components

of the opposition’s arguments. This step frequently identifies the areas of inadequate

understanding and, if periodically employed with appropriate follow-up discussion, can also build

the foundation of understanding needed for compromise and ultimate solution of the conflict. If

compromise is required to resolve conflict, then certainly a better understanding of the positions

and points of view of both parties is needed before that compromise can occur.

The Counterproposal

Conflicts are usually resolved by modifying the original positions taken by one or more parties to

a dispute. As stated before, unless there is movement away from the original stand on an issue

toward the opposing point of view, there is little likelihood of resolving the conflict. Someone

must change, but usually neither party is willing to be the first to modify its position. The

perspective that the mediator needs to develop in parties to a conflict is the idea that the

alternatives are not restricted to either total rejection or complete capitulation. Instead, each side

should be encouraged to offer a counterproposal that at least recognizes the merits of some of

the opposing arguments and suggests a compromise representing a better situation possibly for

those concerned than would be true if the previous position of the other side were accepted in

total.

The development of a counterproposal is a complex task. The proposal must advance

sufficiently toward incorporating the main points raised by each party so that it will command

attention and study, rather than immediate rejection, and it cannot sacrifice the basic integrity of

either point of view. Its presentation must be timed for just the right moment, unless it be

rejected because the other side is not yet ready to consider a possible modification of its original

position or because the other side is past the point of being willing to consider a change. The

key to acceptance of a counterproposal is a recognition on the part of all involved that each side

must acknowledge, to some extent, the validity of the other side’s arguments if the conflict is to

be resolved.

Page 148

Arbitration

The administrator should recognize that some conflicts cannot always be resolved through the

process of mediation and that arbitration may become necessary. Arbitration means that the

conflict is submitted to a third party, and both sides to the dispute agree to accept the arbitrator’s

judgment. The arbitrator may be a superior in the organization or may be an outside party,

depending on the nature of the conflict and the surrounding circumstances. When both sides to

a dispute agree to submit the issue to an arbitrator, they commit themselves to accepting and

implementing the arbitrator’s resolution of the conflict.

Arbitration by an outside party is a relatively new phenomenon in education, although

the process of internal arbitration by a superior in the organization has existed for many years.

The more frequent use of outside arbitration reflects a growing polarization of points of view on

the part of many groups in education and a lack of success in utilizing more traditional means of

resolving conflict. While arbitration is not acceptable to many because of the freedom that is

relinquished in submitting to the judgment of an arbitrator and because it does not guarantee

that the conflict will not erupt again, we can probably anticipate its continued use when other

methods of resolving conflict fail.

EVALUATION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT EFFORTS

Regardless of which conflict management approach is used, the administrator, as well as the

other participants, should keep in mind that conflict cannot always be totally resolved, due to its

difficult and intractable nature. Figure 5.3 illustrates the variation in possible outcomes of efforts

to resolve conflict.

If an administrator cannot achieve a total resolution of a conflict, this does not mean that the

administrator has failed. Conflict amelioration represents a worthwhile achievement in many

situations and may be the only attainable objective under difficult circumstances. Evaluating

whether or not the conflict was totally resolved, however, is not the only aspect of conflict

management that should be assessed. In order for an administrator to determine whether the

efforts to resolve a conflict have been successful, the following questions should be addressed:

1. To what extent do all parties to the conflict feel that the administrator has acted fairly?

Evidence?

2. To what degree was the initial problem that produced the conflict ameliorated or

resolved? Evidence?

3. How much time, energy, and frustration were spent during efforts to resolve the conflict?

Evidence?

4. To what degree do the participants now have a more positive attitude toward each

other? Evidence?

5. To what extent have the participants in the conflict developed new skills or approaches

to preventing similar conflicts in the future or resolving them more effectively if they were

to occur? Evidence?

Page 149

Obviously, these questions will not be easy for an administrator to answer, nor should there be

an attempt to address them without the involvement of the other parties to the conflict. By trying

to answer these questions, the administrator will be likely not only to draw accurate conclusions

about the success of conflict management efforts but also to learn something during the process

of evaluation that could improve future effectiveness.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Although conflict has been studied by many scholars, there still appears to be no single proven

method or formula for preventing or resolving discord. Based on experience and the writing of

those who have examined the problem, however, the following observations are offered in

conclusion:

1. Conflict is often inevitable in an educational organization, and, to some extent, it may

indicate that important changes are being proposed, considered, or implemented. A

complete absence of conflict over a long period of time may suggest a stagnant

organization or educational program.

2. Disruptive, continuous, or pervasive conflict is a sign that all is not well within the

organization. This type of conflict is deleterious to the emotional health of those who are

associated with the organization and can impede the achievement of organizational

objectives if it is not successfully ameliorated or resolved. The administrator must take

the initiative in identifying, diagnosing, and mediating this type of conflict.

3. Emotions are as important to consider in dealing with a conflict as are facts. Facts may

change emotions, but unless there is a sufficient understanding of the way people feel

about the issues and about the other parties involved, the conflict will probably not be

resolved.

Page 150

4. The “win or lose” philosophy that characterizes so much of what occurs in our society

has no place in conflict resolution. All references to, or impressions of, “winners and

losers” or “the good guys and the bad guys” should be avoided. To the greatest extent

possible, the final resolution of a conflict should advance the interests of all the parties.

5. The process of conflict resolution should not end at the time of final resolution. Hurt

feelings may still exist, and scars incurred during early stages of the conflict may still

require the administrator’s attention if future problems are to be prevented.

6. A sense of humor, perspective, and a belief in the innate good intentions of most people

are important to the resolution of conflict. Disputes are irritating and their resolution can

be a frustrating experience. The successful resolution of a conflict may depend in many

situations more on the personal characteristics of the participants than on any other

factor.

Administrators must be prepared to resolve conflicts. They can gain conflict management skills

through internships, case studies, sensitivity training, and simulations, in addition to studying

theory and research. For example, Ivarie’s article entitled “Strategies for Managing Conflict in

the Collaborative Process” contains useful strategies such as “withdrawing, forcing, smoothing,

compromising, and confronting.”

WHEN CONFLICT TURNS VIOLENT

Increasingly, administrators must solve conflicts of a physical nature that cannot be resolved by

consensus or conflict resolution exercises. Schools can no longer be assumed to be the safe

havens they were once considered. In recent years, tragic acts of violence have alerted

educators, students, parents, and communities that there is no room for complacency. To help

prevent violence, schools are employing such various strategies as using metal detectors,

controlling access to school property, and having law officers present at schools.

Bullying

Today’s headlines are rife with stories of teen suicide due to bullying and, unfortunately, too

many stories of teachers and administrators not addressing the situations. According to the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES):

● One out of every five (20.2%) students report being bullied.

● A higher percentage of male than of female students report being physically bullied (6%

vs. 4%), whereas a higher percentage of female than of male students reported being

the subjects of rumors (18% vs. 9%) and being excluded from activities on purpose (7%

vs. 4%).

● 41 percent of students who reported being bullied at school indicated that they think the

bullying would happen again.

● Of those students who reported being bullied, 13 percent were made fun of, called

names, or insulted; 13 percent were the subject of rumors; 5 percent were pushed,

shoved, tripped, or spit on; and 5 percent were excluded from activities on purpose.

● A slightly higher portion of female than of male students report being bullied at school

(24% vs. 17%).

Page 151

● Bullied students reported that bullying occurred in the following places: the hallway or

stairwell at school (43%), inside the classroom (42%), in the cafeteria (27%), outside on

school grounds (22%), online or by text (15%), in the bathroom or locker room (12%),

and on the school bus (8%).

● 46 percent of bullied students report notifying an adult at school about the incident.

● The reasons for being bullied reported most often by students include physical

appearance, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation.

Research compiled from various sources by the National Bullying Prevention Center

(NBPC) notes following statistics regarding bullying:

● Rates of bullying vary across studies (from 9% to 98%). A meta-analysis of 80 studies

analyzing bullying involvement rates (for both bullying others and being bullied) for 12- to

18-year-old students reported a mean prevalence rate of 35 percent for traditional

bullying involvement and 15 percent for cyberbullying involvement.

● One in five (20.9%) tweens (9–12 years old) has been cyberbullied, cyberbullied others,

or seen cyberbullying.

● 49.8 percent of tweens (9–12 years old) said they experienced bullying at school and

14.5 percent of tweens shared they experienced bullying online.

● 13 percent of tweens (9–12 years old) reported experiencing bullying at school and

online, while only 1 percent reported being bullied solely online.

Bullying of Students with Disabilities

● Students with specific learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, emotional and

behavior disorders, other health impairments, and speech or language impairments

report greater rates of victimization than their peers without disabilities longitudinally and

their victimization remains consistent over time.

● When assessing specific types of disabilities, prevalence rates differ: 35.3 percent of

students with behavioral and emotional disorders, 33.9 percent of students with autism,

24.3 percent of students with intellectual disabilities, 20.8 percent of students with health

impairments, and 19 percent of students with specific learning disabilities face high

levels of bullying victimization.

● Researchers discovered that students with disabilities were more worried about school

safety and being injured or harassed by other peers compared to students without a

disability.

● When reporting bullying, youth in special education were told not to tattle almost twice as

often as youth not in special education.

● Successful strategies to prevent bullying among students with disabilities include:

○ Teachers and peers engaging in meaningful and appropriate social interactions

○ Creating opportunities to increase social competence and positive interactions

○ Schools adopting appropriate intervention strategies that encourage social

awareness and provide individualized interventions for targets with disabilities

Page 152

Bullying of Students of Color

● 23 percent of African American students, 23 percent of Caucasian students, 16 percent

of Hispanic students, and 7 percent of Asian students report being bullied at school.

● More than one-third of adolescents reporting bullying report bias-based school bullying.

● Bias-based bullying is more strongly associated with compromised health than general

bullying.

● Race-related bullying is significantly associated with negative emotional and physical

health effects.

Bullying of Students Who Identify or Are Perceived as LGBTQ

● 70.1 percent of LGBTQ students were verbally bullied (e.g., called names, threatened) in

the past year because of their sexual orientation and 59.1 percent because of their

gender expression, and 53.2 percent based on gender.

● 28.9 percent of LGBTQ students were physically bullied (e.g., pushed, shoved) in the

past year because of their sexual orientation and 24.4 percent because of their gender

expression, and 22.8 percent based on gender.

● 48.7 percent of LGBTQ students experienced cyberbullying in the past year.

● 59.5 percent of LGBTQ students feel unsafe at school because of their sexual

orientation, 44.6 percent because of their gender expression, and 35 percent because of

their gender.

● 34.8 percent of LGBTQ students missed at least one entire day at school in the past

month because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable, and 10.5 percent missed four or more

days in the past month.

● Of the LGBTQ students who reported they were considering dropping out of school, 42.2

percent indicated they were doing so because of the harassment they faced at school.

● Compared to LGBTQ students with no supportive school staff, students with many (11 or

more) supportive staff at school were less likely to miss school because they felt unsafe

(20.1%–48.8%) and felt greater belonging to their school community.

● LGBTQ students experienced a safe, more positive school environment when their

school had a bullying prevention/anti-harassment policy that specifically included

protections on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

● Peer victimization of all youth was less likely to occur in schools with bullying policies

that are inclusive of LGBTQ students.

School administrators must be attuned and prepared to deal with any incidents of

bullying. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services

Administration (HRSA) suggests that school administrators assess bullying at your school and

your staff’s commitment to address bullying and learn about good bullying prevention programs.

Page 153

Zero Tolerance

Many schools and school districts have taken the precaution of establishing zero-tolerance

policies. Such policies establish in advance what the consequences of particular offenses will be

and impress upon students that certain actions absolutely will not be tolerated. Zero means

zero. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that most schools have such

policies for at least some types of behavior. The center’s researchers found that more than 9 out

of 10 schools reported zero tolerance for weapons of any kind. Similarly, nearly 9 out of 10

schools reported policies of zero tolerance for drugs (88 %) and alcohol (87 %). Zero tolerance

was also found to apply to tobacco products and to physical fighting or other types of violence

on school property.

At the same time, such policies have their critics. “Critics say these policies lead to

overreaction, pointing to such cases as suspending a child for bringing a toy gun to school,”

writes Rasicot, “but many school officials stand by the policies.”72 In her overview of attitudes

toward such policies, Rasicot cites the worries of some civil rights advocates who fear that

“students’ rights might be trampled by efforts to ensure a safe school.” She also mentions the

concerns of mental health authorities who would prefer that a student’s motives be explored

before penalties are meted out and that penalties be meted out on a case-by-case basis suited

to the particular offender.

In an article entitled, “Does Zero Mean Zero?” Martin points out the frustration school

administrators often feel over the enforcement of zero-tolerance policies because there is a

constant weighing of two sets of students’ rights—the rights of the individual student accused of

violating a zero-tolerance policy and the rights of the entire student body to learn in a safe

environment. No matter how the administrator handles a given situation, including turning the

matter over to the school board if that is district policy, there are still circumstances, Martin says,

when “parents of the disciplined student—and sometimes, other interested parties—might

question the judgment used by school administrators and disagree with their decisions.”

Martin urges school boards, superintendents, and building-level administrators to

acknowledge the apprehension of parents and the community and thus to make every effort to

publicize the weapons policy of the school or district. Such publicizing would include

“highlighting the consequences for noncompliance and defining the weapons that are

considered deadly and dangerous, for which possession would result in mandatory expulsion.”

He goes on to say that “the district also should acknowledge that only special circumstances

may be taken into account when determining the appropriate consequence.” Examples of such

circumstance might include the offender’s age, ability to understand the policy’s requirements,

intent, past disciplinary record, and how the presence of the weapon (or item defined as a

weapon) affected others. Martin has put together a list of suggestions designed to help

principals avoid “communication pitfalls” in carrying out zero tolerance. He concludes:

Trying to balance strict policy enforcement with practical procedural

implementation is the greatest public relations challenge facing today’s school

administrators. But remember: Any school would rather gain a reputation for

zealously enforcing a strict weapons policy than receive notoriety for a shooting

incident. And communities will support their schools’ effort to increase safety and

decrease violence—as long as schools don’t lose sight of common sense.

Page 154

Other Strategies for Preventing School Violence

Many schools are attempting to find additional ways to address the issue of potential violence.

“Security measures such as metal detectors can stop students from bringing weapons to school

but do little to address the anger, meanness, and fistfights that are the much larger, although

less newsworthy, part of the problem,” Shapiro observes. He expresses concern over the way

anger, fear, and fighting harm students both academically and emotionally, and distract them

from the learning experience. “When arguments and threats escalate into violence,” he writes,

“the result is disruption of school activities, agitation of other students, disciplinary incidents, and

sometimes, suspensions and expulsions which cause further loss of learning.”

School Violence Prevention Programs

Shapiro’s suggested remedy is the institution of school violence prevention programs such as

the Peacemakers Program for grades 4 to 8. He points out that the program helps students

develop specific skills for handling conflict. These skills are essentially built around three basic

strategies: “proactively avoiding conflicts, responding effectively to conflicts once they have

begun, and removing oneself from conflict situations in which the other person’s maladaptive

behavior makes resolution impossible.” Particularly important, Shapiro stresses, is the need to

recognize that some young people look upon violence as “the most honorable and admirable

response to conflict.” Such students are not motivated to learn skills for dealing with conflict by

nonviolent means. Therefore, special attention must be given to addressing the proviolence

values such students hold.

Mediation

Mediation, including peer mediation, is another way that schools are working to deal with

dispute resolution and violence prevention. Trevaskis points out benefits that both disputants

and mediators gain through such programs and describes the important life skills both parties

learn when the mediation approach is applied. In his ERIC Digest summary of mediation

practices in schools, Trevaskis has included a “checklist for mediation,” outlining how the

mediation process works. As Beyer points out in a discussion of the legal rights of students with

regard to school safety, “Certainly, violence prevention training, as opposed to criminal

enforcement techniques, is the course most consistent with a recognition of children’s human

rights.”

Resources to Help in Violence Prevention

The Internet provides many resources that may help school leaders deal with the problem of

school violence and concerns about school safety. Figure 5.4 provides an overview of some of

the best material from reliable sources that is available online from the Internet.

Page 155

▪ FIGURE 5.4 ONLINE RESOURCES TO AID EDUCATIONAL LEADERS IN KEEPING

SCHOOLS SAFE

Description Web Page URL

Resolution Ensuring Safe and JustSchools for All Students. Customize thisresolution to outline protections for studentsduring COVID-19, including a safe schoolenvironment, access to technology fordistance learning, and more.

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/resolution-ensuring-safe-and-just-schools-all-students

Safe Schools Resources. The PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education’s Office for SafeSchools coordinates school safety andsecurity programs, collects the annual schoolviolence statistics, coordinates antiviolenceefforts, and develops policies and strategiesto combat school violence.

https://www.education.pa.gov/Schools/safeschools/Pages/default.aspx

How to Protect Students from SexualHarassment: A Primer for Schools. Thisfact sheet is part of a series of tools designedby the National Women’s Law Center to helpschools address the dropout crisis, inparticular those students who dropout due tosexual harassment and bullying.

https://nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Final%20SH%20Fact%20Sheet-Schools.pdf

Indicators of School Crime and Safety,2019. A report from the National Center forEducation Statistics and the Bureau of

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020063

Justice Statistics.

Consortium for Appropriate DisputeResolution in Special Education. CADRE,the National Center on Dispute Resolution,encourages the use of mediation and othercollaborative strategies to resolvedisagreements about special education andearly intervention programs.

http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/index.cfm

ACLU Youth & Schools. The Youth &Schools program strives to make publicschools safe and bias-free, defending freeexpression in public schools.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbt-rights/lgbt-youth

LGBTQ YOUTH OF COLOR: DisciplineDisparities, School Push-Out, and theSchool-to-Prison Pipeline

LGBTQ YOUTH OF COLOR: Discipline Disparities, School Push-Out, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Learning for Justice https://www.learningforjustice.org/

National Youth Violence PreventionResource Center. Information on youthviolence, youth at risk, youth suicide, gangs,and firearm violence. Good source forstatistics.

www.safeyouth.org

Stop the Hate. Dedicated to helpingstudents, educators, police and thecommunity to stop hate crimes and violence.Also a good connection to other communitiesabout activities in these areas

www.stopthehate.org

ERIC (Educational Resource InformationCenter). Information for parents and teachersabout many educational issues.

https://eric.ed.gov/

Take Action Against Bullying. Informationabout bullying from recent articles.

www.bullybeware.com

Stop Bullying Now. Does not believe thatbullying is a part of growing up. View lettersfrom students.

www.stopbullyingnow.com

Gay, Lesbian and Straight EducationNetwork (GLSEN). Antibullying resourcesand support for schools to implementeffective and age-appropriate antibullyingprograms to improve school climate for allstudents.

https://www.glsen.org/

The U.S. Department of Education has in recent years placed great emphasis on

understanding what leads to school violence and what is most effective in preventing it. Its 1998

publication, Early Warning, Timely Response, was written as a guide for school leaders and all

others interested in school safety. Summing up research on violence prevention and

intervention, the publication includes early warning signs (but with a caveat about not

misinterpreting or misusing them), principles for helping troubled children, information on how to

develop a prevention and response plan, and how to respond to crisis in the event that a tragic

act of violence does occur.

A companion publication for principals, teachers, mental health professionals, and

families was issued by the Department of Education in 2000 after the positive reception of its

Early Warning, Timely Response guide resulted in requests for a follow-up resource.

Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide was developed to help schools utilize a

three-stage comprehensive school safety model built around “schoolwide prevention, early

intervention, and intensive services for students with significant emotional or behavioral needs,

including those with disruptive, destructive, or violent behaviors.”

Page 156

Effective leadership requires a knowledge of conflict management that is applicable to a

wide variety of situations, including situations that could escalate into violence. Materials that

can assist in gaining this knowledge are readily available, and research is showing which

strategies are most effective.

Although most of the case studies, suggested learning activities, and simulations presented in

Part II of the text require the appropriate use of this chapter’s material on managing and

resolving conflict, the following exercises should provide the best opportunities for specifically

testing understanding and effective use of these concepts: Cases 13, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32,

33, 41, 56, and 60; the midyear in-basket exercises; and the end-of-the-year in-basket

exercises.