Like most businesses, Head Start programs already have dispute resolution procedures in place for disputes like violations of equal opportunity and safety laws. These procedures are often spelled out by law, a contract, or a regulation.

The focus of this article, however, is on the minor, low-level disputes and disagreements for which Head Start programs (and most other organizations) seldom have established dispute resolution procedures. Although such disputes are common and affect more people in the organization than, for example, an OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration) violation, they are often overlooked by managers.

Providing procedures to remedy low-level disputes in organizations can also be a way to improve the delivery of services, overall workplace morale, and general effectiveness. The following steps introduce a framework for analyzing and addressing a Head Start program's unmet dispute resolution needs.

1. Recognize that an "informal" system is already in place. As disputes arise and nothing is done about them, they may "go away" on their own, or they may accumulate and grow into major problems.
2. Assess the cost of doing nothing. The accumulation of unresolved grievances can lead to a climate of disgruntlement and dissatisfaction.
3. Identify the current "culture of conflict." Where low-level resolution efforts are not encouraged or attempted, a culture of "dispute denial and avoidance" is created. The messages informally circulated within the organization include the ideas that disputes are "bad"; they must be ignored, avoided, or denied; they do not warrant official recognition or attention; and they will get one in trouble. The products of such a "default" dispute resolution system are often dissatisfaction, dysfunction, and complaints.
4. Collaboratively assess conflict and its costs. An assessment should be made of the number, types, and nature of disputes that occur at the lowest organizational level. Examples include personality clashes and professional practice disagreements. It is important to include people in the assessment who have different views of how dispute resolution is currently conducted.
5. Identify conflict management goals. One positive result of an assessment is that participants are often able to identify common goals. Targeting simple, clear, and measurable conflict management goals in a Head Start program is critical to any improvement effort.
6. Collaboratively design an early intervention approach and evaluate it. With goals identified, a Head Start program design committee should develop initial procedures to intervene early and preemptively in low-level disputes. Start small with a tentative approach. Try a pilot combination of measures and assess whether it is effective. Always evaluate efforts and be prepared to adjust.

Christina Sickles Merchant is a dispute resolution practitioner, designer, and consultant for workplace disputes. This article is reprinted, in part, from the Spring 1997 issue of the Head Start Bulletin on Managing Change/ Managing Conflict.

Are We Doing Dialogue Yet?

Most people talk about the four D's - dialogue, debate, deliberation, and discussion - interchangeably. Fortunately, practitioners of genuine dialogue have learned how to distinguish dialogue from other forms of conversation. The most revealing distinctions are those that contrast dialogue and debate. The following list is adapted from the writings of Mark Gerzon.

Debate

1. Assuming that there is a right answer and that you have it
2. Combative: participants attempt to prove the other side wrong
3. About winning
4. Listening to find flaws and make counter arguments
5. Defending assumptions as truth
6. Critiquing the other side's position
7. Defending one's own views against those of others
8. Searching for flaws and weaknesses in other positions
9. Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position

Dialogue

1. Assuming that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they craft a new solution
2. Collaborative: participants work together toward common understanding
3. About exploring common ground
4. Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement
5. Revealing assumptions for re-evaluation
6. Re-examining all positions
7. Admitting that others' thinking can improve one's own
8. Searching for strengths and value in others' positions
9. Discovering new options, not seeking closure