You will map the conflict in the resources section and perform a preliminary analysis on the escalation of the conflict. In your evaluation, avoid summarizing the case.

In a large publishing company in New York, a young woman, Laura, was hired as a copy editor for one of

the many journals produced by the company. Seven other employees worked on this team editing this

Journal, including a senior editor named Tim. Laura had worked there for about a month when she and

her fellow co-workers went for happy-hour after work. Everybody had a great time and had consumed a

fair amount of alcohol. When everybody was leaving the bar to head home, Tim, who had been secretly

attracted to Laura since she started work at the journal, hailed a cab and offered to share the ride with

Laura. Laura accepted the offer. Once she was inside the cab, Tim then suddenly made an aggressive

sexual advance toward her. Horrified, Laura pushed him away and told him to get out of the cab.

Mortified, Tim slinked out of the cab.

The next day, Laura came to work with some apprehension. How would she deal with Tim? Would the

cab incident affect her job? Although Tim did not supervise her, would he try to get her fired? Tim

immediately went to her office and apologized for his extremely inappropriate behavior in the cab.

Relieved at his apology, Laura decided not to pursue the matter through any formal channels in the

office. She figured that since Tim apologized, there was no need to dwell on the incident. After all, Laura

was a new employee, still in the process of learning the office politics and proving herself as being a

competent editor. She did not want to rock the boat or bring negative attention to herself.

Everything would have been okay if Tim had stopped at just one sincerely expressed apology. However,

whenever he found himself alone with Laura, Tim apologized again. And again. He said he was sorry

about the incident at every opportunity he had for three months. This constant apology was awkward

and annoying to Laura. Ironically, by Tim apologizing continuously for his unwanted attention in the cab,

he was foisting another form of unwanted attention upon Laura. When he first started apologizing,

Laura told him that “it was okay”. After three months of many apologies, she reached a point where she

asked him to stop apologizing, to no avail. Frustrated, she confided in a few co-workers about her

unusual dilemma. Consequently, these co-workers lost respect for Tim.

Although the cab incident was not common knowledge in the office, Tim sensed that others knew about

it by the way they interacted with him. The incident became the office “elephant” that the employees

“in the know” saw, but didn't explicitly acknowledge. Meanwhile, Laura was tired of hearing Tim

apologize and her feelings of discomfort increased. So when another editor position opened up in

another journal division of the company, she applied for the job and was transferred to the other

journal. In her new position, she didn't have Tim bothering her anymore. But she was unhappy with her

new job. The journal material was very boring. She didn't work as well with her co-workers as she did in

the previous journal (excepting Tim). She realized that she really enjoyed her old job. She began to

regret her decision to avoid the conflict with Tim by moving to the new job. In an effort to seek advice as

to how to solve her problem, Laura decided to consult with the company ombudsman.

Conflict Mapping Mapping is an approach to analyzing a conflict situation. You represent the conflict on paper, placing the parties in relation to the problem, and conveying the relations between them. To map a situation:

1. Decide what you want to map, when, and from what point of view. It is useful to map the same situation from a variety of viewpoints, as this is how the parties to it actually do experience it. Remember – perception is key. It is also a good idea to reflect over whether those who hold this view would actually accept our description. Hint: Map both the seen and unseen parts of the conflict. Think about the conflict in terms of the ABC model. What behaviors under the surface might have led to this conflict?

2. It is always useful to map perceptions, needs, or fears. Remember, there is a difference between the three. This gives us greater insight into what motivates different parties. It may help to explain some of the misunderstandings and misperceptions between parties. Again, it is useful to reflect over whether the parties would agree with the needs, fears, or perceptions you ascribe to them.

3. Place yourself on the map. Putting ourselves on the map is a good reminder that we are part of the situation, not above it, even when we analyze it.

4. Mapping is dynamic — it reflects a changing situation, and points toward action. This kind of analysis should offer new possibilities. What can be done? Who can best do it? When is the best moment? What groundwork needs to be laid beforehand, what structures built afterward?

You should construct your map in a way most helpful to you. Some people do better with a

visual depiction of the conflict, while others do better with columns, bullets, or paragraphs

separated into sections. The most important thing to remember is this is a tool for you to

understand the conflict from multiple perspectives in order to help all parties involved achieve

successful resolution.

The method described here is adapted from the non-governmental organization Responding to Conflict (RTC),

headquartered in Birmingham, UK. For additional guidance on building a helpful conflict map, see the following

source:

Wehr, Paul. “Conflict Mapping.” Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information

Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2006

.