CERTIFICATE IN

INVESTIGATION SERVICES

CSI 2423
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Intellectual Property Rights

Unless otherwise indicated, this Material is our propriety property and all source code, databases, functionality, software , website
designs, audio, video, text, photographs, and graphics on the material are owned or controlled by Kolej UNiKOP. And are protected by
copyright and various other intellectual property rights.
SUBJECT: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Lecture by: MOHAMMAD RAFFI BIN

FHIDZON

CHAPTER 2: MANAGING RISK IN

CONFLICT SITUATION
2.1 MANAGING CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS CAN
REDUCE THE RISK OF CONFLICT
How to manage customer expectations – even when they’re unreasonable
• Customers often expect more than you can do.
• Fortunately, it’s possible to manage their expectations, deliver what you can and keep them happy.
• You’re likely tempted to say no when customers ask for something that seems unreasonable or
outside the scope of what you do.
• But consider this: Customers often make difficult requests because they don’t know what to expect
from you.
• They don’t know your rules, policies and generally accepted practices as well as you do or, perhaps,
at all.
• Most ask because they don’t know the possibilities and limitations.
• Only a small percentage know what to expect and try to get more or take advantage of you.
• That’s why the best way to handle unreasonable requests is to manage customer expectations
better.
• For instance, “If an issue will take a few weeks to resolve, it’s better to be transparent than overly
optimistic and under-promise than over-promise,”
HERE ARE FIVE EFFECTIVE WAYS TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS:
 
1. Cover more solutions
• Employees on the front line who deal with customers most often need to be armed with a variety of
solutions to common and potential issues.
• That way, they can offer customers an alternative when they demand something that’s not possible.
• “By listing off possible resolutions, (service pros) empower their clients to understand the complexity
of a particular problem, engage directly with its solution and ensure they don’t have unrealistic
expectations of the resolution,”

Tip: Give front-line employees a forum - a meeting, chat platform, message board or data base. It is to
share their best-practice solutions to common problems and some of the unusual issues they hear.
Keep it updated and accessible.

 
2. Be transparent
• Reasonable expectations are often born from trust.
• Companies that make their policies, values and practices transparent build trust with customers.
• That’s done by making it clear through your website, company literature and social media pages
how you do business.
• Then, most importantly, train employees to practice those principles.
 
Tip: On the transactional level, employees should explain how and why they’re handling a situation or
issue a certain way. Customers who understand what’s going on will know what to expect, and they’ll
be more likely to be satisfied with how you are handling things.
3. Give clear timelines
• Most customers don’t mind waiting (a little, at least) — as long as they understand why.
• They understand that glitches, errors and bugs come up. But they expect you to be honest about
them.
 
Tip: Post on your website, in social media and on your telephone queue how long they’ll wait for a
response. Once you’re in contact, and if you can’t help immediately, set the expectation for a returned
phone call, email or follow up. If it’ll take longer than you anticipated, update them when you said you’d
contact them again.
4. Be optimistic and realistic
• Most service pros want to make and keep customers happy — and they know that a quick resolution
will do that.
• After all, everyone wants to hear good news, such as the problem will be fixed, the refund will be
made or the solution will be implemented now.
• While it’s good to be optimistic for customers, it’s more important to be realistic and set the right
expectation.
 
Tip: Explain what customers can expect, plus what might get in the way of the ideal outcome. Then, if
one of those glitches happens, customers won’t be taken by surprise and disappointed.
5. Follow up
• Perhaps the most crucial element to setting and managing expectations is following up. “Most
customers are not bothered by companies touching base with them,”.
• In fact, “customers expect businesses to follow up with them to round out their customer
experience.”
• Contact customers through the channel they choose with updates on progress and the final
resolution.
• One final follows up: Call to confirm they’re happy with how things were handled and turned out.
2.2 THE STAGES OF ESCALATION IN CONFLICT
SITUATIONS
Terminology:

• Glasl's escalation model is a very useful diagnostic tool for the conflict facilitator, but also valuable
as a means for sensitizing people to the mechanisms of conflict escalation.
• Such sensitizing may lead to a greater awareness of the steps one should take care to avoid if one
wants to prevent a conflict from escalating out of control.
• In a more academic perspective, the model also provides a theory of conflict escalation that
emphasizes the situational pressures acting upon people involved in a conflict.
STAGE 1: HARDENING

• The first stage of conflict escalation develops when a difference over some issue or frustration
in a relationship proves resilient to resolution efforts.
• The problem remains, and leads to irritation.
• Repeated efforts to overcome the difficulties fail, which means that the natural flow of shifting
concerns is blocked.

• The threshold to stage 2 is taken when one or both parties loses faith in the possibility of solving
the problems through straight and fair discussions.
• When straight argumentation is abandoned in the conflict slips into stage 2.
STAGE 2: DEBATES AND POLEMICS

• Since the counterpart doesn't seem amenable to sensible arguments, discussions tend to
develop into verbal confrontations.
• The parties look for more forceful ways of pushing through their standpoints.
• In order to gain strength, they tend to become increasingly locked into inflexible standpoints.
• The dispute is no longer restricted only to a well-defined issue, but the parties start to feel that their
general position is at stake.
• This means that they divert more and more attention to how they appear: being successful, strong
and skilful rather than compliant, insecure and incompetent.
• The feeling of being blocked is further increased by the limited possibility genuine verbal
communication.
• The threshold to stage 3 is related to the basic right of each party to be heard in matters of mutual
interest. When one party feels that further talking is useless, and start acting without consulting the
other side, the conflict slips into stage 3.
STAGE 3: ACTIONS, NOT WORDS

• At stage 3, the parties no longer believe that further talk will resolve anything, and they shift
their attention to actions.
• Common interests and the prospect of resuming cooperation recede into the background, and the
parties see each other as competitors.
• The sense of being blocked by the counterpart is paramount, and the dependencies linking oneself
to the other part are felt as extremely vexing.
• The antagonists therefore seek to replace the mutual dependencies with unilateral dependency, in
order to be able to dominate the counterpart.
• The most important goal at this stage is to block the counterpart from reaching his goal, and to push
through one's own interests.
• The parties start to see themselves as being held captives by external circumstances they cannot
control.
• They therefore tend to deny responsibility for the course of events.
• An increasing part of their own actions are regarded as necessary responses to the behaviour of the
other side.
• The threshold to stage 4 is veiled attacks on the counterpart's social reputation, general
attitude, position and relationship to others.
• "Deniable punishment behaviour" (see below) is a characteristic sign of slipping into stage 4.
STAGE 4: IMAGES AND COALITIONS

• At stage 4 the conflict is no longer about concrete issues, but about victory or defeat.
Defending one's reputation is a major concern.
• The "typical" that evolved at stage 2 and 3 are now consolidated and complemented into full-blown
general and consistent images of the counterpart.
• These images are stereotypical, highly fixed and are very resilient to change through new
information.
• Such images serve an important role in providing a sense of orientation: one has the feeling of
knowing what to expect from the environment.
• Conflict parties start to attribute collective characteristics both to members of the other side and to
in-group members.
• Individuals are perceived to have certain characteristics (such as unreliability, incompetence,
bossiness, etc.) only by virtue of belonging to a specific group.
• The threshold to stage 5 is constituted by acts that lead to a public loss of face for one or both
parties.
• If the basic honour of someone is offended repeatedly and deliberately, in particular in a public
setting, the conflict is highly likely to slip into stage 5.
STAGE 5: LOSS OF FACE

• The transition to stage 5 is particularly dramatic. The word "face" signifies here the basic status
a person has in a community of people.
• As long as a person is regarded as a respectable citizen, he or she has an intact "face," and is
entitled to fair treatment and respect.
• The "face" is reproduced by the members of a group, by their avoiding any overt actions that
challenge the basic status a person has.
• The "face" is hurt by public events, not by private gossip or individual opinions.
• Loss of face means that the conflict parties feel that they have suddenly seen through the mask of
the other party, and discovered an immoral, insane or criminal inside.
• The transformation of the image one party holds of the other is radical.
• It is not an expansion of the old biased image, but is felt as a sudden insight into the true, and very
different, nature of the other.
• The threshold to stage 6 is felt to be less dramatic than to stage 5.
• When the parties start to issue ultimate and strategical threats, the conflict enters stage 6.
STAGE 6: STRATEGIES OF THREATS

• Since no other way seems to be open, the conflict parties resort to threats of damaging
actions, in order to force the counterpart in the desired direction.
• The strategical threats of stage 6 are very different from the deniable punishment actions
characteristic of stage 4.
• The latter mainly serve the function of giving vent to pent-up frustrations.
• Strategical threats are actively used in order to force the counterpart to certain concessions.
There are three phases in the increase of issuing strategical threats:
1. The parties issue mutual threats in order to show that they will not retreat. The threatening party
wants:
(a) to draw attention to themselves and their demands;
(b) to demonstrate autonomy and ability to form the agenda;
(c) to get the counterpart to conform with a specific demand or norm by issuing a threat of sanctions.

2. In the next phase the threats are made more concrete, unequivocal and firm. The parties make
dedicated statements of self-commitment from which they cannot retreat without losing credibility, in
order to enhance the seriousness of their threats.

3. In the third phase, the threats are formulated as ultimate, where the counterpart is forced to an
either-or decision.
• The threshold to stage 7 is the fear of the consequences that might ensue if the threats are carried
out.
• When the parties actively seek to harm the other side's sanction potential, the conflict transforms to
stage 7.
• Threat strategies only work as long as the parties believe that a threat may act deterring. However,
the very internal dynamics of stage 6 drive the parties to translate the threats into action.
STAGE 7: LIMITED DESTRUCTIVE BLOWS
 
• The threats of stage 6 undermine the basic sense of security of the parties. Now they expect the
counterpart to be capable of very destructive acts.
• Securing one's own further survival becomes an essential concern. It is no longer possible to see a
solution that includes the counterpart.
• The counterpart is regarded as an impediment that must be eliminated by targeted attacks aiming to
maim the other.
• The counterpart is now a pure enemy, and has no longer human qualities.
• No human dignity stands in the way of the attacks; the enemy is just an object standing in the way.
• This may go as far as using words like "eliminate" and "exterminate" when discussing what to do.
• There is no longer any real communication.
• At stage 6 the threat strategies build upon at least a minimum of communication: one must know if
the counterpart rejects or accept an ultimatum.
• In stage 7 each party is only concerned with expressing their own message, and they don't care
about how it is received, or what the response might be.
• Threats followed by immediate interruption of communication is a sign of stage 7 dynamics.
• The threshold to stage 8 is attacks that are directly aimed at the core of the counterpart, attacks
that are intended to shatter the enemy or destroy his vital systems.
STAGE 8: FRAGMENTATION OF THE ENEMY
 
• At this stage the attacks intensify and aim at destroying the vital systems and the basis of
power of the adversary.
• One may specifically aim at fragmenting the counterpart into ineffectual splinters, and at the ability
of the counterpart to make decisions.
• Negotiators, representatives and leaders may be targeted, in order to destroy their legitimacy and
power in their own camp.
• The system that keeps the counterpart coherent is attacked, hoping that the very identity of the
other side will crumble so that it falls apart through its own internal contradictions and inherent
centrifugal forces.
• When a party is attacked in a way that threatens to shatter it, it is forced to make strong efforts to
suppress internal conflicts.
• This increases the stress and the internal pressure within the parties, and leads to an even stronger
pressure to undertake further attacks on the other side.
• The parties fall apart into factions that fight each other, making the situation completely
uncontrollable.
• The attacks on the counterpart targets all signs of vitality.
• The main objective is now to destroy the existence basis of the adversary.
• The only restraining factor is the concern for one's own survival.
• The threshold to stage 9 is reached when the self-preservation drive is given up. When this
happens, there is no check at all on further destructiveness.
STAGE 9: TOGETHER INTO THE ABYSS
 
• In the last stage of conflict escalation, the drive to annihilate the enemy is so strong that even
the self-preservation instinct is neglected.
• Not even one's own survival counts, the enemy shall be exterminated even at the price of
destruction of one's own very existence as an organization, group, or individual.
• Ruin, bankruptcy, prison sentences, physical harm, nothing matters any longer.
• All bridges are burnt, there is no return.
• A total war of destruction without scruples and remorse is waged.
• There are no innocent victims, no neutral parties.
• The only remaining concern in the race towards the abyss is to make sure that the enemy will fall
too
2.3 THE APPLICATION OF DYNAMIC RISK ASSESSMENT CAN REDUCE
THE RISK OF CONFLICT
 There are two types of risk assessments:
1. Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) (done by monthly, Quarter annually, semi annually, Annually)
2. Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA) (done when something happened suddenly. E.g: flood,
earthquake)

 Formal Risk assessments involve analysing the risks and hazards of your workplace and
implementing controls to either eliminate or reduce them.
 However, if your work environment suddenly changes, how should you react?
 Dynamic risk assessments allow you to make quick assessments of changing work environments
so you can continue to carry out your duties safely.
 This section will explain what a dynamic risk assessment is and when you might use one.
2.3.1 What is a Dynamic Risk Assessment?

• A dynamic risk assessment is the process of continually observing and analysing risks and hazards
in a changing, or high-risk, environment.
• This allows workers to quickly identify new risks and remove them.
• Formal risk assessments are prepared in advance, recorded and monitored on a regular basis.
• Conversely, dynamic risk assessments are ‘dynamic’ or ever-changing, and carried out on the
spot by an individual when they enter a new environment or their current environment changes.
• However, carrying out a dynamic risk assessment doesn’t mean you don’t need to carry out a
formal risk assessment.
• Dynamic risk assessments should complement and fill in any gaps that you couldn’t predict
when completing your Formal risk assessment.
• You should carry out a dynamic risk assessment before entering any new situation
and continue to constantly assess the risks and hazards in case there is a change in
circumstances.
2.3.2 When Might a Dynamic Risk Assessment be Used?

• Some roles are subject to lone working, high-risk activities or regularly changing work environments.
• For example, emergency service e.g: policeman, workers might regularly encounter situations
where it’s important to quickly assess risks and hazards.
• In these cases, a dynamic risk assessment would be appropriate to ensure that workers observe
and analyse hazards and risks specific to the circumstances of that situation.
Example Of A Situation

For example, consider a worker who regularly carries out home visits e.g a Doctor. When carrying out
a formal risk assessment, they identify the hazards that they may encounter and develop controls to
reduce or eliminate the risks.
However, each visit will be different, and there may be risks they couldn’t predict. One morning, the
worker carries out a home visit and, when they enter the premises, they instantly begin to feel
uncertain about the situation. The worker is instantly aware of their surroundings and starts to assess
the risks. They notice warning signs that the client they have come to visit is under the influence of
drugs and alcohol.
They then consider what they know about the individual and the situation, and ask themselves the
following questions:
1. Do they have a history of violence? What effect might the substance have on their mood? Are they
likely to act erratically? How confident do I feel in this situation?
2. Does this environment make me vulnerable in any way? Is there anything that could be used as a
weapon against me? Is there anyone else who is at risk? How can I exit the situation if needed?
3. Are my actions or words aggravating the situation? Am I invading personal space? Is me being here
something they disagree with? 
• Asking questions like these will help the worker to assess the situation.
• They will then be able to decide whether they should proceed with the visit, how they may be able to
do so safely, and how they can exit the situation if the need arises.
• By doing this, they are carrying out a dynamic risk assessment that helps them decide on controls to
eliminate or reduce the risks.
2.3.3 Benefits of a Dynamic Risk Assessment
Understanding how to carry out a dynamic risk assessment has many benefits. It’s specifically
important that you know how to carry one out if you work in constantly varying environments. If you can
carry out a dynamic risk assessment, you will:

1. Be able to take a proactive approach to safety. 

You will have the knowledge needed to instantly assess risks and hazards of any new, variable
situation.
2. Feel confident in your ability to assess your environment. 
As you will have the appropriate training needed to instantly observe, analyse and react risks and
hazards in new situations, you will feel confident making decisions that ensure the safety of you and
your team.
3. Feel more confident doing your job. 
By having the skills needed to do your job safely, you will feel more confident entering new, unknown
situations.

By understanding how to carry out a dynamic risk assessment, you will have the tools needed to
confidently assess any situation you encounter and ensure you work safely.
2.4 THE IMPORTANCE OF POSITIONING
2.4 The importance of positioning
 
i. fulfil needs and wants
Arguments, especially public ones, are often fought on the level of positions; what one wants to happen
or what should be done. “Position” is defined in the Conflict Management Glossary as a demand. “I
want this, and you want that.” Elected and appointed officials will take a "position" on a particular issue,
either for or against it. Positions can generate problems because each person focuses on only their
needs and there seems to be little room for compromise.
 
ii. narrowing problems.
In democratic politics, problems are resolved with a vote. But when voting is not possible or
appropriate, arguing over positions can be ineffective and sometimes destructive. People become
rooted in their positions and often move farther apart. Positions usually define a problem too narrowly,
stating only one solution when others are possible.
iii. learning one’s interest
One’s interest in an issue is the underlying reason behind a particular position. Interests may be
broadly defined as principles, values or belief systems, and must be addressed if a conflict is to be
resolved fairly. An important step in resolving any conflict is to help people understand each other’s
interests behind their positions.
 
iv. Appoint the real issues
Positions are proposals as to how interests might be satisfied and resolved through addressing the
real issues of the dispute. Many conflicts which appear to be unavoidable win-lose situations are more
manageable when redefined (or reframed) in terms of underlying interests:

However, what if one child wants to eat the orange while the other wants the rind for a science
project?
 
Had the children explained their underlying reasons for wanting the orange (their interests), a win-win
solution could have given both children what they wanted. The best solution: give one child the rind
and the other child the orange flesh. The conflict is resolved because the interests of both parties have
been identified and met.
2.5 THE IMPORTANCE OF EXIT ROUTES
2.5 The Importance Of Exit Routes
 
All of us at one time or another have been involved in conflict management situations in which words
alone fail, creating the need for us to leave the situation.  The difficulty at the point the decision is made
to leave, is how to accomplish the exit?
 
It is great to be able to tell someone, “just leave”, but how one goes about doing this can escalate a
situation, or it may set up the next person, who needs to assume the interaction, to fail before he/she
even arrives on the scene.
FIRST EXAMPLE:
 
If you leave an interaction with someone without an explanation as to why you are leaving, or providing
some kind of next step information, the person you are interacting with will become more agitated,
because you have just given the impression you are “blowing them off.” Then again, if your explanation
sounds something like this, “You are rude and I don’t need to put up with this kind of behavior!” and
then you leave, you may have just pushed the individual off an emotional cliff, with escalated behavior
to follow.
 
SECOND EXAMPLE:

There is also the exit language which sets up the next person to fail. That sounds like this, “I’m calling
security.”  Now think for a moment, when someone from the general public is informed security is on
the way, what is the expectation of what is about to happen?  Most individuals equipped with the
knowledge that security is coming prepare themselves for World War III, after all most individuals
assume security comes to either kick someone out or hold them for the police, thus setting the stage
for aggression before the fact.
Exit language needs to be tailored to the situation one is trying to leave.  It must convey to the other
individual that you have listened to what is being said, it must acknowledge that you need assistance in
some form or another to help the individual with the concerns that have been voiced, and it must be
open ended enough so as to not limit your response options, or set the next person up to fail before
he/she even has a chance to say a word. 
 
The language should advise the individual that you are going to continue to work to address the
concerns which have been voiced, but at the same time inform the individual that, for whatever reason,
you aren’t the person who can resolve the issue(s). 
Some examples of “exit language”:
 
 I don’t seem to be able to help you with your concerns, but I will contact someone who can and get
right back with you.
 You have concerns I don’t seem to be able to help you with, but I think I know someone who can
help. I’m going to step out and make a call and get back with you.
 Your concerns deserve greater attention than I can give them, but I think I know who to call to help
you.
 Your concerns are important to me, as a next step let me talk to my supervisor to see what can be
done.
The things to remember about the exit:
 
i. Identify who you call
It is important not to identify who you will be calling, as some contact options represent a step of
escalation, or are even seen as a threat.  Once you have made your exit, contact the person or people
best suited to advance the conflict management process to a peaceful resolution.  Who you contact
can vary greatly depending upon the concerns and needs.
 
ii. don’t embarrassed others
It is equally important that you don’t set up the individual you are dealing with to “lose face” or suffer
embarrassment through the response option you select.  For instance, if you need to involve security,
be prepared to explain to the individual why security is the most appropriate party to address the
concern(s), or at the very least prepare security to provide that explanation if re-entering the scene is
not safe or prudent for you.
iii. Use proper words
Additionally, stay away from words such as “problem” or “issue” in your exit language, i.e. “I can tell you
have problems.” Or “You have lots of issues.”  These are trigger words. You might just as well tell the
individual “You are the problem” or “You are the issue.”  The word “concern” works very nicely in these
situations as it conveys that you have picked up on the person’s distress and want to help elevate the
causes.
iv. code language
There is a second set of exit language which also must be considered.  This is language that is used
by someone else to extricate us from a confrontational situation, or in a situation where it is
immediately realized that the potential for harm is more than you can handle and you need to “get out”
gracefully and warn others in the area. In the former, language which would appear to be common in
the workplace, but is actually “code language” for leave the situation. 
 
For instance, in a hospital setting the code may be “MRI 99” and could be employed by saying, “The
doctor needs to see you in MRI 99, let me see if I can help this person.”  Then transition and leave the
situation. It means u have to go, and I will stay here.
 
Whether you are the person responding to try and resolve the conflict, or the conflict comes to you, you
need to take time to think about the exit language that will best suit you and your workplace.  Usually
two or three practiced statements will allow you to exit safely, maintain the emotional safety of the
person you are interacting with, and keep everyone physically safe.
 END OF CHAPTER 2

THANK YOU

Intellectual Property Rights

Unless otherwise indicated, this Material is our propriety property and all source code, databases, functionality, software , website
designs, audio, video, text, photographs, and graphics on the Material are owned or controlled by Kolej UNiKOP. And are protected by
copyright and various other intellectual property rights.