Third party consultation:a method for the study and resolution of conflict

RONALD J. FISHER1

Department of Psychology, University of Michigan

Conflict in its many forms is an omnipresentfact of human existence. Since it often includes

dysfunctional and destructive components,men have explored numerous methods for itsmanagement, including techniques of avoid-ance, regulation, and resolution. A number ofthese methods involve the intervention of an

outside third party as in mediation, arbitra-tion, and conciliation. Recently several investi-gators in various fields have been developingsimilar approaches which appear to exhibit anew type of third party intervention directedtoward the study and resolution of conflict.These approaches have been given differentlabels and evidence variation on a number ofdimensions. Nevertheless it is suggested here,that they exhibit a core of common character-istics which warrants grouping them togetherunder the term, third party consultation, afterWalton ( 1969).

This general method centers on the facilita-tive and diagnostic actions of an impartialthird party consultant in helping antagonists

understand and constructively deal with the

negative aspects of their conflict. In part thisinvolves the injection of social science theoryrelating to conflict processes. The approach isdecidedly noncoercive, nonevaluative, rela-

tively nondirective, and seeks exploration andcreative problem-solving with respect to basicrelationships, rather than settlement of specificissues through negotiation.

Third party consultation can thus be distin-

guished from more traditional types of inter-vention on a number of dimensions, includingthe degree of coercion applied to the parties,the flexibility of the interaction, and the natureof the objectives. Many of these distinctionsare discussed by Burton (1969) in comparinghis third party approach of controlled commu-nication with more established methods. It

must be emphasized that third party consulta-tion is not simply a complementary adjunct nora straightforward extension of other forms ofthird party intervention. On the contrary themethod is a step in a new direction in the fieldof conflict resolution and involves an unprece-dented combination of third party strategiesand behaviors. Obvious parallels between pastmethods and the present one should not betaken as a denial of the uniqueness of thirdparty consultation.

This article presents a comparative reviewand an explication of the general characteris-tics of third party consultation. Several exam-

ples of the method are briefly described, and a

1This article is based on a lengthier paper preparedwhile the author was a graduate student at the Uni-versity of Michigan and was on leave from the Uni-versity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. For

continuing stimulation and guidance in this project,the author is greatly indebted to Daniel Katz. Forhelpful suggestions and comments regarding earlierdrafts, the author wishes to thank Raphael S. Ezek-iel, J. David Singer, Dorwin Cartwright, EugeneBurnstein, Clinton F. Fink, and Daniel S. Sydiaha.

68

descriptive model is developed which, in com-bination with existing literature, might serveas a common conceptual base for further theo-retical, practical-empirical, and experimentalwork, and around which accumulating knowl-

edge might be organized. It is suggested thatsimilarities among the various examples over-ride their differences, and that most of thecontributors are saying many of the same

things, although their explicitness and

terminology varies. Therefore it appears

appropriate and opportune to inject somesystematization into the field by present-

ing an initial model, based primarily on thework of Walton (1969), Blake, Shepard, andMouton (1964), and Burton (1969). In devisinga classification of related phenomena, there isbound to be much that is arbitrary and tenta-tive. Hence other ways of arranging an analyticdescription of third party consultation mightserve just as well, and the model must be seenas open to modification given the recent devel-opment of the method. To aid in this critical

process, some of the assumptions and limita-tions of the method are examined, and direc-tions for further theoretical and empirical workare suggested.

Some Examples ofThird Party Consultation

The main contributors to the method come

from many different fields in the social sciences

including business administration, politicalscience, and psychology. They focus on a vari-ety of different systems including dyads in

organizations, families, labor-managementand other subsystems of organizations, com-munities, and finally the international system.To place some semblance of order on this vari-

ety, the instances of third party consultationare herein organized under the headings of

interpersonal, intergroup, and international.

Some examples of related interventions are

given to yield some flavor of what is not

included in the present model.

APPLICATIONS IN THE

INTERPERSONAL SPHERE

One of the more ambitious and perhapsmost explicit and systematic statements of

third party consultation has been offered byWalton ( 1969) in his recent work entitled Inter-

personal Peacemaking: Confrontations and

Third Party Consultation. The author drawson case studies from the business organizationsphere wherein he acted as a process consultantwith the goal of alleviating predominantlydysfunctional conflicts between executives. Theapproach partly resembles sensitivity training,but also involves consideration of substantive

issues relating to the occupational roles andduties of the participants. Based on a compre-hensive model of interpersonal conflict, the

method aims for well-managed and productiveconfrontations between antagonists broughtabout by third party involvement. The consult-ant undertakes several strategic functions

which are carried out through an extensiverepertoire of interrelated tactical choices andinterventions. The overall consultation includes

preliminary interviewing, structuring the con-text for the confrontation, intervening in theconfrontation, and planning for future dia-

logue. The general objective is to deescalate theconflict by substituting benevolent cycles forself-maintaining malevolent ones.

Also in the interpersonal sphere the useful-ness of a third party approach in marital coun-seling has been shown by Satir (1967) in Con-joint Family Therapy. During a series of ther-apy sessions attended by the entire family, thetherapist attempts to improve both the accu-racy and openness of communication. Other

functions include reducing threat, stimulatinghope, and inducing a here-and-now processorientation in the family’s thinking.

APPLICATIONS IN THE

INTERGROUP SPHERE

In the organizational arena some of the mostpromising third party consultations have been

69

carried out by Blake, Mouton, and their asso-ciates as reported in Managing IntergroupConflict in Industry (Blake, Shepard, and

Mouton, 1964). The general goal of these

behavioral science interventions is to change ahostile win-lose orientation to a collaborative

problem-solving one. To accomplish this end invarious intergroup relationships such as

union-management, headquarters-field, and

merger situations, Blake, Shepard, and Mou-ton (1964) have implemented a variety of inter-group training laboratories wherein the partici-pants focus upon the nature of the conflictbetween them with third party intervention and

regulation. Besides providing relevant behav-ioral science theory and integrating it into theparticipants’ actual lab experience, Blake andhis associates have devised a variety of proce-dures to enable the parties to examine theirimages of themselves and each other and todiagnose and improve their relationship. Theimprovement of communication and the estab-lishment of more positive attitudes are seen asnecessary bases for effective joint effort.A similar but less extensive program has

been reported by Muench (1960, 1963), whohas outlined how a clinical psychologist maytreat labor-management conflicts throughreference to one particular case history. Bymeeting with individuals and groups in a vari-ety of settings within the organization, Muench(1960) was able to diagnose the main problemsas ineffective communication, mutual distrust,and differing perceptions of the same issues.The consultant was then able to undertake

actions and make recommendations. A four-

year follow-up has indicated the recommenda-tions were successful. Muench (1963) regardsthe nondirective, impartial, catalytic role of thethird party as highly important in reaching theobjectives.

In the area of community conflict some ofthe earlier intergroup relations workshops suchas reported by Levinson (1954) have common-alities with third party consultation. In this

paradigm, a small number of social scientists

meet with a group of well-motivated individu-

als over several weeks and provide a programof lectures, discussions, and extracurricular

activities. There is however no intergroupinteraction as such, focusing on the actual con-flicts, although participants do come from avariety of ethnic backgrounds. Levinson (1954)sees the main functions as: (1) providingknowledge and skills regarding intergroup rela-tions, (2) inducing emotional-ideologicalchange by clarifying participants’ thinkingregarding relevant concepts and processes andby furthering the growth of deomocratic think-ing and self-insight, and (3) providing an

intense supportive living experience throughthe social support of the diversified partici-pants. Assessment of three such workshops byLevinson and Shermerhorn (1951) and Levin-son (1954) showed statistically significantchanges in various predispositions related tointergroup relations as measured by a batteryof personality-attitude scales of the authoritar-ianism-ethnocentrism variety. While one canonly speculate on what effect such proceduresmight eventually have on actual intergrouprelations, the change in individual attitudes atleast stimulates optimism.Also in the community arena a growing

number of social scientists are becomingdirectly involved in attempts to improvecommunication and induce problem-solvingamong various groups and factions. Mac-

Lennan (1970) reports on the activities of a

Community Mental Health Center and a

Mental Health Association whose objectivewas to reduce community conflict in a subur-ban county. Much of the work centered around

integration of white and black schools, and avariety of committees, workshops, and individ-ual consultations were instituted in an attemptto facilitate this process. However polarizationoccurred and the subcommittee created to helpresolve the community conflict over the issueof integration moved to a position supportingthe integrationist side.Another example of the involvement of be-

70

havioral scientists in community affairs is givenin Bell et al. ( 1969) which describes a series ofhuman relations training laboratories involvingpolice officers and community members of alarge southwestern U.S. city. The objectives ofdeveloping greater respect and harmony and ofpromoting a cooperative relationship by havingsmall mixed groups first examine the existingstereotypes and then develop a problem-solvingattitude conducive to conflict resolution. The

specific procedures were similar to those usedby Blake et al. (1964). Although a number ofproblems were encountered, the results of

post-discussion evaluation, attitude question-naires, and follow-up community observationsindicate that some positive changes occurred.A final example of intervention in the inter-

group sphere, with strong international connec-tions, is provided by Lakin (1969) in Arab &

Jew in Israel: A Case Study in a Human Rela-tions Approach to Conflict. The consultantsused sensitivity training methods in two mixedgroups of Jews and Arabs living in Israel to tryto improve intergroup communication and re-duce intergroup suspicion. The program of

consultation included exercises for empathyand communication skill development, ethni-cally mixed team projects for developing pro-posals, and dialogue groups emphasizing groupprocess and communication. In addition the

application evidenced perhaps the most com-prehensive set of assessment techniques seen inthe literature. These included pretraining ques-tionnaires, tallies of key behaviors and topics,observations during most activities, sociomet-ric ratings, projective tests, and posttraininginterviews centering on participants’ evalua-

tions. While there was participant resistance,both consultants and participants were mildlypositive about the outcomes. In a later workLakin (1972) reviews some examples and dis-cusses the general applicability of trainingtechniques for the amelioration of intergroupconflict, and while pointing out numerous

problems does suggest further work is desir-

able. Although the training approach puts

more emphasis on individual and interper-sonal processes, it does yield valuable insightsfor the development of a more general modelof conflict resolution.

APPLICATIONS IN THE

INTERNATIONAL SPHERE

One of the most promising programs which

may be subsumed under third party consulta-tion is that of controlled communication as

described by Burton (1969) in Conflict andCommunication: The Use of Controlled

Communication in International Relations.

Under the auspices of the Centre for the Anal-

ysis of Conflict, University College, London,Burton and other political and social scientistshave met in small private discussions with

appointed representatives of parties engaged ininternational conflict. The consultants attemptto create a nonthreatening, problem-solvingatmosphere in which the participants mayexamine their perceptions regarding the rela-tionship and may jointly explore means of

analyzing and resolving the conflict as well asdeveloping wider common interests. The meet-

ings are controlled by the third party consult-ants in a fairly nondirective fashion and the

emphasis is on establishing effective communi-cation, which Burton (1969) sees as the key toconflict resolution. Another important func-tion of the consultants is to draw on their spe-cialized knowledge regarding conflict processesand apply it in the context of the ongoing dis-cussions. This eventually enables the partici-pants to stand back and look at the relation-

ship without emotional bias or rigid commit-ment, and thus to see the other party’s point ofview. However only the representatives them-selves can accurately describe and ultimatelyresolve their differences by selectively drawingon the material provided by the third party.The carry-over of outcomes to the actual rela-

tionships between nations is problematic anddeserving of follow-up research. Burton (1969)maintains that the technique of controlled

communication is congruent with general

71

trends in the study of world politics as well asin the practical control of conflict, and con-trasts the method with more traditional onesboth with respect to practice and to philosophi-cal bases. Related assumptions regarding thesubjective nature of conflict are spelled outand further explicated in Burton ( 1968). On thewhole Burton’s (1969) work is a persuasiveargument for the efficacy and desirability ofthird party consultation as a means of studyingand resolving conflict.A more limited but nevertheless courageous

foray by social scientists into the internationalarena is described in a collective work edited byDoob (1970) entitled Resolving Conflict in

Africa : The Fermeda Workshop, in an initialreport by Doob, Foltz, and Stevens (1969), andin an article by Walton (1970). This workshopwas an attempt to apply sensitivity training,supplemented by other exercises, as a means ofproducing innovative solutions to border dis-putes involving Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya.The total group of three American organizers,four trainers, and eighteen African academicswere divided into two matched T-groups andmoved from sensitivity training to discussion ofsubstantive issues. Although the evaluationsgiven by various individuals in Doob (1970)vary a great deal, there did appear to be

enhancement of communication and some

favorable attitude change, and within each T-group there was agreement regarding a solu-tion. However the total group could not reach a

consensus, and the two-week meeting ended ona note of frustration and failure. While this

program appears more focused than some of

the other examples it is still similar enough tobe included in the development of the model.

SOME EXAMPLES OF

RELATED INTERVENTION METHODS

While not a direct example of third partyconsultation, the program of research outlined

by Sherif (1966) in his report In CommonPredicament: Social Psychology of IntergroupConflict and Cooperation does have important

implications. Through a well controlled pro-gram of manipulation, Sherif and Sherif

( 1953), and Sherif et al. ( 1961 ) have realistical-ly created boys-camp groups, brought abouthostile relationships between them by means of

highly competitive interactions, and then trans-formed such relationships to positive coopera-tive ones by means of behind-the-scenes impo-sition of superordinate goals, i.e., compellingobjectives not attainable by either group alone.Thus through this intervention, Sherif (1966)has emphasized a highly important, if not es-sential, ingredient of mutual positive motiva-

tion-namely, superordinate goals which

can be made continuously salient by a third

party. In fact Sherif (1966) suggests that

such goals are already awaiting accentuation in

every group relationship. For example at theinternational level there is the common predic-ament of impending nuclear annihilation.

Since third party consultation and the moretraditional third party mediation have similari-ties as well as differences, it is not surprisingthat some of the functions and tactics of labor

mediators parallel those of third party consult-ants. Douglas (1962) in her work IndustrialPeacemaking has given a realistic and perhapsrevealing report on the behavior of mediatorsthrough actual observation and completesound-recording of mediation cases. In it we

find the mediator pacing the negotiationsthrough various phases by actions both specificand general, and inducing the desire to settle bya variety of means such as balancing tablepower, adjusting the degree of tension, andintensifying fears regarding the possibility ofstrike action. The emphasized objective is

however a specific compromise settlement

rather than a collaborative exploration andcreative solution with respect to negativeaspects of the basic relationship between theparties.A related statement of third party activities

at the international level has been provided byYoung (1967) in The Intermediaries: Third

Parties in International Crises. This broader

72

treatment encompasses more established

methods of third party diplomacy, with theemphasis on mediatory activities, as well asmore direct interventions of a peacekeepingvariety. The main objectives are terminatingcrises and aiding parties to strike a bargain,rather than consultation in a face-to-face prob-lem-solving confrontation. Nevertheless someof the functions and tactics of third parties arestated in an abstract and general form andtherefore parallel those of third party consulta-tion. In addition a number of the role require-ments, resources, and capabilities of potentialthird parties outlined by Young (1967) tran-scend any particular method and are thus

congruent with the consultation model.

The Analysis of Options technique which hasbeen applied to a community conflict (Bain,Howard, and Saaty, 1971) as well as an inter-national conflict (Howard, 1971) has somesimilarities with third party consultation. Thesocial scientists attempt to analyze the conflictby relying on the knowledge and insights ofparticipants or informed experts who are

involved in the situation. Issues are clarified

and acceptable solutions are explored by con-sidering each party’s preferences for possibleoutcomes. In this way creative solutions mayobtain which are very different than those

which result from negotiations between theparties themselves. However the method doesnot involve the direct participation of antago-nists and consultants in problem-centered dis-cussions, and is more directed toward settle-

ment of specific issues than is third party con-sultation. In addition the consultant’s identityis not as critical a factor, and beyond diagnos-ing the conflict, there is little overlap in stra-tegic functions and tactics of the third party.

A Model of Third Party Consultation

In order to exhibit more systematically theessential elements of third party consultation, amodel is presented below which divides themethod into its major components. The main

descriptive categories and specific characteris-tics are outlined schematically in Figure 1. In

the figure, the categories have been arrangedsequentially from left to right depending onwhether they are most important preliminaryto, concurrent with, or consequent to the jointdiscussions within a consultation program.

Situation, identity, role, functions, and objec-tives are seen as more fixed than tactics, proce-dures, supportive activities, and program.

Tactics and procedures are seen as so variedand flexible that specific listings are not includ-ed, and the supportive activities listed are

regarded as illustrative and optional dependingon the particular program.The third party consultation situation refers

to the basic arrangements or essential condi-tions of the method. The third party role is

defined as the abstracted pattern of behaviorand related normative expectations, while thethird party identity is regarded as the constella-tion of relevant attributes, including both char-acteristics and capabilities. Similarly the par-ticipant role and participant identity refer toparallel attributes of the antagonistic parties ortheir representatives. Third party consultationhas certain objectives which are the ultimate,general goals or end-states toward which themethod is directed. To reach these objectives,the consultant carries out a number of junc-tions which are relatively broad strategiesdesigned to establish certain related conditionsfavorable to the attainment of the objectives.The functions are expressed through specificbehavioral interventions in the ongoing dia-logue which can be referred to as third partytactics. Alternately the tactics may be comple-mented by and initiated within a series of con-trolled procedures wherein the participants areasked to carry out specified tasks or exercisesto further expedite the functions and to attainthe objectives. The actual consultation discus-sions must be complemented by some addi-tional supportive activities such as inviting andinterviewing participants and assessing any

changes which occur. All of these aspects must

73

FIG. 1. A model of third party consultation.

then be blended into an overall program of

consultation for real-life application.The various categories are of course highly

interrelated. For example the role of the third

party is intimately tied to his identity, in thathow one is expected to behave is dependent onwho one is and what attributes he possesses.

Similarly the functions and tactics further

define the role and are both dependent on theidentity, especially with respect to capabilities.Such connections are elaborated more fully inthe following detailed exposition of the cate-gories.

THE THIRD PARTY

CONSULTATION SITUATION

The fundamental arrangements for third

party consultation are simple: the consultantmeets with antagonists to a conflict in a face-to-face small group setting on neutral groundto undertake informal and flexible discussions

focusing directly on the nature of the conflict.While the basic characteristics of this situation

cannot be spelled out precisely, they can bedescribed as falling within some roughly speci-fiable range.

74

Size and Composition of the Group. Mini-mally the situation requires one third partymeeting with two antagonists; this is commonat the interpersonal level. However other inter-ested individuals and real or potential thirdparties may be present thus adding to the socialcomplexity of the minimal situation. Walton(1969) has commented on some of the potentialeffects of additional persons. In the intergroupand international applications it is common forboth the third party and the principals to becomprised of more than one individual each. Inboth the Blake, Shepard, and Mouton (1964)and Burton (1969) works the third party is ateam of social scientists who may come from

various disciplines but whose common interestsrevolve around conflict theory and resolution.The actual number of consultants and par-

ticipants appears to be flexible and is not pre-cisely given for all cases. However the mainconsideration is that group size be restricted so

that small group discussion is possible. Al-

though neither research nor experience pro-vides the magic number, most indications pointto an optimum range of 10 to 20 individuals.This is close to Burton’s (1969) rule of

thumb stipulating 12 to 15 as a good num-ber. A second major consideration may be therelative proportions of consultants and

participants. It is possible that having a

majority of consultants, as seems to have

occurred in some of Burton’s (1969) work,might result in a norm-setting processwherein the behavior of the participants is

disproportionately compliant. Thus the issue ofpublic versus private behavior and attitude

change becomes manifest, and more sophisti-cated techniques of assessment beyond consult-ants’ impressions become necessary. It is evi-

dent that Burton (1969) has incorporated con-siderations which attempt to offset even themost subtle forms of coercive social influence.

Nevertheless it is probably desirable for theconsultants to be in a minority whenever feasi-ble.

Nature of the Interaction. It is regarded as

essential that most, if not all, of the interactionbe of a face-to-face nature. Burton in an illus-

trative invitation to one party has stated: &dquo;On

the basis of our own experience, and the historyof disputes, we feel we cannot stress this proce-dural aspect too much: without face-to-face

participation in the consideration of proposals,there can never take place the complex adjust-ments in attitudes and perceptions that is nec-essary for any set of proposals to succeed&dquo;

(1969, p. 39). This direct involvement is evidentin all of the above applications and appearsnecessary for the exploratory, creative atmo-sphere in which participants can react and

adjust to the ongoing stream of activity.A second keynote of the interaction is flexi-

bility applied to what is said, how it is said, andhow long it takes. In other words the time lim-its as well as the agenda are flexible, althoughthere is a progression to the interaction whichthe third party attempts to bring about some-times by assigning specific procedures. Thepoint is that exploratory, accommodative dis-cussions are not simply turned on and off, andwhile the third party can arrange meeting timesand approximate durations, greater flexibilitythan is often found in conflict settlement pro-cedures is required.A third and related characteristic of the

interaction is that of informality. The tone is

quite removed from that of a business staffmeeting, labor-management negotiations, or

especially diplomatic meetings at the interna-tional level. Burton sums up the atmosphere bynoting, &dquo;In due course what emerges is a highlysophisticated seminar discussion as might takeplace among experienced staff members of aninterdisciplinary university department&dquo; (1969,p. 67).Nature of the Setting. The most important

characteristic of the setting is its neutrality: it

should not favor one party over the other in

any way. Therefore the third party must makeavailable or choose a setting which is not the&dquo;home base&dquo; of either party, or biased in someless conspicuous manner. Essentially, as Wal-

75

ton has stated, &dquo;The site for the confrontation

affects the balance of situational power&dquo; (1969,p. 117), and consequently the site has motiva-tional ramifications as well as affecting the

perception of the third party’s impartiality.The formality of the setting should in gen-

eral match the informal atmosphere requiredfor the discussions. Beyond that, it may be

possible and useful, especially in the interper-sonal arena as noted by Walton (1969), to varythe formality of the setting to correspond to the

type of work required at any given stage.A more specific structural aspect of the set-

ting is that of seating arrangements at the tablewhich, as Burton (1969) points out, is not a

trivial matter. Antagonists can be quite sensi-tive to positioning, and require flexibility in

focusing on other participants and consultants.Rationale of the Situation. The rationale

underlying the third party consultation situa-tion is congruent with the objectives of themethod and may be stated simply as an

attempt to provide a context which will facili-tate a productive confrontation between theparties or representatives. Walton states thatconfrontation refers &dquo;to the process in which

the parties directly engage each other and focuson the conflict between them&dquo; (1969, p. 95).Similarly Blake, Mouton, and Sloma (1965), in

introducing an account of a union-manage-ment intergroup laboratory, speak of the

two groups examining their present rela-

tionship in depth, focusing on underlyingbarriers, and finally resolving misunder-

standings so that effective joint effort on

common problems is possible. The conse-

quences of such productive confrontations arehighly related to the overall objectives of themethod, and the third party identity and roleare further designed to facilitate this process.

THIRD PARTY IDENTITY

There are several characteristics and capa-bilities required for potential third parties to besalient and acceptable to antagonists, and to beable to carry out a program of consultation.

Walton (1969) has explicitly considered desir-able identifying characteristics, and by modify-ing and supplementing his descriptive cate-

gories with considerations from other applica-tions, one can gain a fairly comprehensive ac-count of the necessary third party identity.

Professional and Personal Expertise. Waltonhas adequately summed up this aspect of thirdparty identity:

The professional and personal qualities attributed tothe third party which give the principals confidencein entering a confrontation and which facilitate con-frontation processes include (a) diagnostic skill, (b)behavioral skills in breaking impasses and interrupt-ing repetitive interchange, (c) attitudes of accep-tance, and (d) a personal capacity to provide emo-tional support and reassurance [1969, p. 131].

Similarly Burton (1969) speaks of sensitivity inintervening, pressing points, and so on. Young(1967), although dealing with more general andtraditional third party intervention, includes

diplomatic and bargaining skill in his system-atic list of third party attributes, and cites anumber of component elements such as timingin taking action and flexibility in making pro-posals.

Professional Knowledge. Professional skill

in consultation presumes knowledge in a

number of possible areas such as conflict theo-ry, group processes, perception, communica-tion, sensitivity training, attitude formation

and change, conflict management practices,and general knowledge specifically related tothe system within which the third party is

working. Consider the following statement

from Burton:

Panel members are political and social scientists whohave worked in the fields of conflict, including therelated areas of decision-making, perception, deterr-ence, escalation, functionalism, and the very manyother aspects that are now the subject of empiricalresearch. Experienced diplomats, journalists, histori-ans, and others who do not have this type of aca-demic background can make little contribution: therole of the third party is to make available a body ofknowledge on which the parties can draw, and it is a

76

specialised knowledge that they would not normallyhave [1969, p. 63].

In the various procedures developed byBlake and his co-workers (Blake and Mouton,1961, 1962; Blake, Shepard, and Mouton,1964) for changing intergroup conflict to inter-group collaboration, the application of behav-ioral science theory, mainly of social psycho-logical derivation, is an integral part of theprocess. It not only helps the consultants intheir work, but is also directly transmitted toparticipants to help them understand and

modify their relationship. Likewise Walton

(1969) demonstrates the relation between

knowledge regarding conflict theory and inter-ventionary behavior by detailing numerousimplications that his diagnostic model of inter-personal conflict has for conflict management.In conclusion, it is partly to stress that the thirdparty consultant is more than a mere facilitatorof interaction, that the requirement of profes-sional knowledge has been added to the list ofnecessary attributes.

Moderate Knowledge Regarding the Partiesand Their Relationship. Walton (1969) pointsout that moderate knowledge in this area

enhances the credibility of the third party andthe accuracy of his interventions. In controlled

communication (Burton, 1969), some of the

preliminary activities are directed toward

formulating general propositions which may beapplicable. However too much knowledge of aparticular case is likely to result in prior com-mitments, a rigidity in discussions, and rejec-tion by the participants. Only the participantscan describe the relationship as they perceive itand, stimulated by consultants’ questions, onlythey can clarify their positions and resolve theirdifferences.

Low Power Over the Parties. Any moderate

degree of power which the third party has overthe antagonists can have a number of disadvan-

tageous effects (Walton, 1969). These include a

feeling of risk about candid expression, and theproblem of superficially compliant behavior,

designed to elicit the third party’s approval.While the specific form of possible illegitimateinfluence will vary with the application, sufficeit to say that the third party should not hold

any power which could even inadvertentlycoerce the participants.

Control Over the Situation. Since a particu-lar type of group size and composition, interac-tion, and setting is required to facilitate pro-ductive confrontation, the third party requirescontrol over these various aspects of the situa-

tion. While this is related to third party func-tions and tactics, especially in the area of regu-lation, it is useful to regard this power, espe-cially over the setting, as an important third

party attribute. In part this requires control ofcertain physical resources such as meetingplaces and related facilities.

Impartiality. The term impartiality is used

here rather than neutrality, following Young’sdistinction (1967), because although the third

party favors neither side, he most likely willinfluence outcomes one way or the other by his

very intervention. However Walton (1969) usesthe term neutrality, and does maintain that thethird party is neutral with respect to outcomesand related substantive issues, as well as in theareas of personal distance from the principalsand the ground rules of the conflict resolutionapproach. Another important ingredient of

impartiality is Young’s attribute of indepen-dence (1967), i.e., lack of attachment to anyentity having a stake in the conflict. Further-more the third party must be outside the

intense emotional field which typically sur-

rounds a conflict. To be impartial, the consult-ant must be seen by the parties as not emotion-ally involved, and therefore as unbiased andworthy of trust. However it must be noted thatthere is no &dquo;holier-than-thou&dquo; connotation to

impartiality such that the third party is some-how above typical reactions to conflict. Giveninvolvement in a predominantly dysfunctionalconflict, any potential or one-time third partywould himself require the services of an impar-tial third party to help resolve the differences.

77

In practical terms this means that the suitabil-ity of third parties fundamentally depends onthe given conflict, and their impartiality is

defined only with that particular situation inmind. This is especially evident in the interna-tional sphere, where national identity combineswith past and contemporary relationshipsamong nations to establish beforehand what

individuals could be impartial, acceptable, andtrusted third parties in any given conflict. In allapplications, the development of positive inter-personal relationships is an important ingredi-ent of third party trust, but at the intergroup,especially the interethnic, and international

levels, such relations cannot be established as

easily as in the interpersonal sphere, and inmany cases are ruled out beforehand by a per-ceived lack of impartiality based on group ornational identity. Even when initially estab-lished, impartiality is a very fragile condition inthe real world, and requires constant consider-ation for its maintenance.

Result of an Adequate Third Party Identity.The outcome of an adequate third party iden-tity is to make the consultant salient and

acceptable in the eyes of the antagonists, and tolay the foundation for a positive relationshipbetween the third party and the participants.The above attributes are prerequisites for arelationship involving trust, respect, and

friendly attitudes between the third party andthe participants. This relationship is jointlydetermined by these intial givens of the thirdparty and by his behavior during consultation.The relative importance of these two bases mayvary with the specific conflict as well as withthe general sphere of application. For examplethe difficulty of achieving an adequate identitymay increase with the complexity of the con-flict relationship, thus making the initial givensmore important in the international arena.

Conversely the development of positive rela-tionships during the course of interaction is

probably easier and may be a stronger determi-nant in the interpersonal applications. In anyevent an adequate third party identity and the

development and maintenance of a positiverelationship, are regarded as highly conducive,if not essential, to the successful application ofthe method.

THIRD PARTY ROLE

The emphasis now moves from third partycharacteristics, or what Walton (1969) has

termed role attributes, to the third party roleitself, i.e., the pattern of behavior congruentwith the position of third party consultant. Therole is more general than specific behaviors(tactics) and has role expectations, or norms,intimately associated with it. The role is closelyrelated to third party functions and may beseen as partly defined by them. Since we arereferring to an abstracted pattern of behavior,one appropriate method of description is to listand briefly explain a number of adjectiveswhich characterize the third party role. These

descriptors are not mutually exclusive and

some indicate nonexistence rather than exis-

tence in order to contrast the role of third partyconsultant with the more established roles of

arbitrator, mediator, or conciliator.Facilitative. The most conspicuous feature

of the third party consultant’s role is that it isfacilitative. This is especially noticeable in thefunctions of stimulating mutual positive moti-vation on the part of the principals and in

improving communication between them. Thusas in some other forms of third party interven-tion (for example mediation), the consultantmay be regarded as a catalyst. However herethe emphasis is on facilitating the process ofexploration and creative problem-solving withregard to dysfunctional aspects of the basicrelationship, rather than aiding the hammeringout of a compromise settlement. When a par-ticular agreement on issues largely decidedbeforehand is the goal of intervention, then thebrand of facilitation associated with mediation

is more appropriate. Also by way of contrast toother roles, the consultant may enter into amore supportive relationship with the partici-pants since the formal constraints of his office

78

are fewer. This further helps to facilitate theprocess of confrontation.

Noncoercive. The role of the third partymust be noncoercive and nonthreatening sothat the participants feel maximum securityand yet independence at the same time. Satir(1967) has emphasized the role of the familytherapist in creating a setting wherein the par-ticipants can take the risk, often substantial, ofexamining themselves and their actions. Bur-ton (1969) speaks of helping the parties standback and look at their actions, images, etc. Inaddition the role must be nonjudgmental since

judgement implies threat and biases the partici-pants’ behavior. Meeting this role requirementis not an easy task. Muench, working in thebusiness sphere, states, &dquo;Many times both

management and the union committee

attempted to induce the psychologist to takesides or act as an arbitrator, but this he refusedto do, and soon both groups accepted him asthe catalytic agent through which they coulddeal more directly and effectively with issues,problems, and each other&dquo; (1963, p. 93). In a

parallel manner Burton (1969) finds that par-ties appeal on numerous grounds to the con-sultants who must resist temptations to becomejudges, and must stress the nonnormative

character of contemporary social science.

Finally persuasion is practically nonexistentand interpretations are never forced on the

parties.Diagnostic The main aspect of the third

party role, which takes it beyond facilitation toconsultation, is related to the function of pro-cess orientated diagnosis, wherein the consult-ants attempt to apply social science theoryregarding conflict during the ongoing discus-sions. It was noted above that Burton requiredthe panel member’s role to include drawing ona specialized body of knowledge; this knowl-edge must be applied in a tentative and sugges-tive manner:

It needs to be emphasized, however, that it is no

more the role of the third party to impose theoretical

explanations than it is to suggest practical solutions.A body of theory is m the minds of the panel, rele-vant questions are asked as a result. Some are

quickly found not to be relevant, others seem to bedodged and may be pressed, but any political scien-tist who is committed to a theoretical explanation orsolution is as disruptive around the table as the

regional expert who has made his own study of theparticular conflict. The parties must select what is

relevant, the panel merely makmg a general first

selection from a vast body of theoretical and com-parative studies to sort out what would otherwise bean impossible task for the parties [1969, p. 64].

The degree of suggestiveness of diagnosis mayvary with different consultants. For exampleBlake and Mouton (1961) appear to make

stronger suggestions and interventions than

Burton (1969), whereas in Walton (1969) the

diagnosis is more implicit. Nonetheless there isenough commonality to suggest that the roleis substantially diagnostic.

Nondirective. The suggestive characteristicof diagnostic interventions is part of the largerrole requirement of general nondirectiveness.The entire process of communication, diagno-sis, and hopefully resolution, must come pri-marily through the joint efforts of the parties,and the direction must be controlled by them.In the first effort at controlled communication,Burton (1969) found that the scholars were ini-

tially too directive and rigid, and had to be-come more humble in order to achieve effective

communication. Applications vary of course,and in some cases setting up a series of system-atic procedures can be beneficial (Blake, Shep-ard, and Mouton, 1964). This is related to thefunction of regulation, wherein the role of thirdparty does involve some degree of control overthe ongoing process. Therefore it is perhapsbest to speak of a qualified nondirectiveness aspart of the third party role, wherein the con-sultant has some direction over the process of

consultation but not over the content of the

outcomes as such.

Nonevaluative. In the majority of cases it issimply too arrogant and most probably invalidfor an outside party to say specifically how

79

things should or could be different, or how theparties to a conflict were wrong in what theydid. Only the parties themselves have experi-enced the full complexity of their situation, andonly they know most of the determinants oftheir behavior. Also they do not need an out-side observer to tell them what is bad about

conflict, for they have experienced that

directly. Hence the use of the term &dquo;dysfunc-tional&dquo; in referring to conflict, suggests the

general point that there may be better ways forboth parties to achieve their goals, rather thanthat either is pathological. Given the complex-ity of interdependencies at any level, dysfunc-tional aspects of conflict will often occur andare as understandable and normal as the oppo-site. It is evident that a good number of theaspects of third party consultation have some

parallels with the process of psychotherapy.However the third party consultant is not

usually dealing with maladjusted individuals,but with normal, competent people and collec-tivities. Thus there is no evaluation or consider-

ation given to individual adjustment; rather thefocus is on the relationship between entities,(for example, Blake and Mouton, 1962) and onthe perceptions and orientations of individualsonly as they relate to those entities and theirrelationship. In addition at the intergroup andinternational levels, interpersonal considera-

tions become mainly irrelevant. The emphasisis not on changing the relationships betweenparticipants themselves, who may be quitefriendly, but on modifying the perceived andactual relationships between the social entities.For example Burton (1969) is not aiming for aninterpersonal change, but rather for a modifi-cation in the perception of alternative goalsand alternative means of reaching goals; in

general, he is striving toward more realisticperception and effective communication at theinternational level. Thus it may be appropriateto refer to third party consultation as a branchof sociotherapy (Walton, 1969). But it must bekept in mind that the consultant, who is

attempting to facilitate change in social rela-

tionships, should refrain from inferring pathol-ogy at the individual entity level, and should becautioned against arrogant evaluations at the

interentity level.

THE IDENTITY AND ROLE

OF PARTICIPANTS

The basic identity of the participants in thirdparty consultation is predetermined by the

conflict situation, i.e., they are antagonists inthe conflict. Beyond that there should be flexi-

bility. In the case of conflict between collectivi-ties, the participants may be the leaders-i.e.,decision-makers-as is primarily the case inthe work of Blake, Shepard, and Mouton

(1964), or they may be official representativeschosen in some manner but with no direct deci-

sion-making power, as in Burton (1969). Alter-natively participants may simply be memberswho identify with and are moderately loyal tothe general point of view of their group ornation, as in Lakin (1969) and Doob (1970).The most important requirement should bethat the participants moderately identify withand adequately represent their side of the con-flict. The fact that they may not be committeddecision-makers can allow them more flexibil-

ity in a number of ways (Burton, 1969). How-ever the closer the participants are to the deci-sion-making process, the more consequentialmay be the ultimate effects of third party con-sultation. For the present it is suggested thatexploratory applications with a wide range ofparticipants can only add to our knowledge,and therefore there should be no strict require-ments in this regard.The role of the participants is less definable

than that of the third party, partly because it isnot the responsibility of anyone except the

participants to define their role, and partlybecause the method seeks openly to alter

aspects of their role as the confrontation prog-resses. Characteristically most participantsapproach the discussions with a bargaining,negotiation predisposition, and one of the

objectives is an attempt to modify it toward a

80

more flexible, exploratory, problem-solvingstance. If the participants agree with externalassessments that such changes have occurred,then there is indication of successful role modi-

fication. Perhaps with the cooperation of

future participants, a more complete picture oftheir role and identity can be formulated. Withregard to the participants’ roles external to thediscussions, there is the same flexibility as withtheir identity. However the amount of influ-ence that external role requirements and con-straints have on behavior probably increases asone moves to the more complex systems, fromthe interpersonal to the intergroup and to theinternational. Perhaps it would be useful to

think in terms of a ratio of interpersonal tcinterrole determinants of the discussion inter-

action, which would decrease as one moved tothe more complex levels.

THE OBJECTIVES OF

THIRD PARTY CONSULTATION

The method of third party consultation is

directed toward certain long-term objectives,which it is hoped will exist beyond the initialprocess of confrontation. The conditions of

productive confrontation-such as motivationto engage, improved communication, and

diagnostic orientation-which are establishedby the related third party functions, can thus beseen as subgoals to the objectives. Neverthelessthe conceptual distinction is not complete andit is evident that conditions initially induced bythe third party’s activities will be parallelled bymore enduring states which may eventuallycome to characterize the parties’ relationshipitself, if consultation has been successful. For

example improved communication is seen bothas a useful condition of confrontation and as a

desirable enduring aspect of the broader rela-tionship between the parties. At the same timeimproved communication is a prerequisite formore general and enduring perceptual, cogni-tive, and emotional modifications in the waythe parties regard each other and their relation-ship. Hence it appears appropriate to distin-

guish the conditions from the consequences ofconfrontation-that is, the objectives. The

problem however is how to analyticallydescribe these general goals while still admit-

ting their existing interrelations, and in a

manner which does not create utter havoc with

respect to levels of analysis, from the individualto the collectivity, and finally to the relation-ship between collectivities. In addition the

broad academic objective of studying conflictshould be explicitly considered. Furthermore in

any given application the relative emphasisgiven to the different objectives will vary

depending on a number of related factors, suchas the identity of the participants.

Conflict Resolution. The ultimate goal ofthird party consultation is conflict resolutionwhich can be distinguished from other types ofconflict management such as regulation or

control, compromise or settlement, and avoid-ance. Resolution involves agreement regardingbasic issues which thus terminates the conflictin a self-perpetuating manner as opposed tocontrol which eliminates some of the sympto-matic issues and concurrently deescalates andreduces the costs of the conflict (Walton, 1969).Resolution is also seen as superior to the

temporary deescalation which may follow themore specific compromises of bargaining, andto the mere smoothing over of differences

which peaceful coexistence entails (Blake,Shepard, and Mouton, 1964). In addition

Burton (1969) points out that resolution, asopposed to settlement, involves a new relation-ship and a final solution, which are freelydetermined by the parties and which are self-supporting unless related circumstances are

changed. Burton (1969) also regards hismethod as going beyond traditional settlementtechniques in that it is applicable to conflictavoidance, both in the sense of resolving antici-pated conflicts before escalation, and by way ofmaintaining peaceful relationships between

friendly parties. These authors are joined byother social scientists in suggesting that someform of creative problem-solving can result in

81

the true resolution of conflict. For exampleKatz (1965) at the international level distin-guishes between bargaining and compromiseon the one hand, and problem-solving and cre-ative integration on the other, by drawing onFollett’s (1924) and Holt’s (1915) distinctionsat the social and individual levels. Katz also

notes Rappoport’s (1961) call for a deeperanalysis, and a more flexible approach andframe of reference in solving problems whichappear to be dilemmas.

All of this is not to contend however that

resolution will always be the immediate out-come of successful third party consultation. On

the contrary often the method may prepare the

parties to deal with their relationship in a waywhich leads to continued consideration of basic

issues, to conflict reduction, and therefore toultimate resolution. It could also prepare the

ground for more meaningful bargaining ornegotiation on specific issues, especially the

type of more flexible, understanding, and trust-ing negotiation proposed by Klineberg (1964).However this is not to deny that there mayexist purely economic or other simpler andunexacerbated types of conflicts, within a regu-lated or institutionalized relationship, whichcan adequately be terminated through bargain-ing. In such cases the dysfunctional aspects andemotional symptomatic issues may be minimaland the basic relationship between the partiesmay not be a source of problems. When thefundamental relationship is an issue, a further

objective of third party consultation is to facili-tate the modification of that relationship in amanner congruent with conflict resolution.

Improved Relationship Between the Parties.Blake and Mouton (1961) and Blake, Shepard,and Mouton (1964) have been the most explicitin stating the objective of changing the rela-tionship between the parties from a destruc-tively competitive win-lose orientation to a

cooperative collaborative problem-solvingorientation. In cooperation the parties jointlyexplore a wide range of alternative approaches

and solutions, rather than each searching forthe conditions under which the opponent willhave to yield. Similarly Burton states that hismethod of controlled communication producesan atmosphere &dquo;that enables participants totreat the conflict, not as a contest, but as aproblem to be solved&dquo; (1969, p. 42). As part ofthis atmosphere, parties are more willing notonly to explore alternative means of reachingtheir goals, but also to consider modifying orreplacing their goals. If consultation is ulti-

mately successful, this atmosphere carries overto the broader long-term relationship betweenthe parties. This new relationship then involvesthe replacement of competitive interests withcommon values, and may lead to a much wider

sphere of collaboration which Burton (1969)terms functional cooperation. Congruent withthese changes must come modifications in theattitudes of the parties so that the flexible,cooperative relationship is at the same time atrusting and friendly one.Improved Attitudes of the Parties Toward

Each Other. The constellation of negative atti-tudes which characterize the antagonists in aconflict have been detailed in various treat-

ments of intergroup and international conflict

(for example, Adorno et al., 1950; Allport,1958; Kelman, 1965; Klineberg, 1964) and arefurther described as substantial barriers to

resolution in most of the examples of thirdparty consultation. In addition the distortingeffects of negative attitudes on perception andcommunication, and the rigid restrictions theyplace on deescalative and cooperative behav-ior, are often seen as further barriers to conflictresolution. It is therefore not surprising thatone of the objectives of third party consultationis to facilitate change in the attitudes of the

participants in a favorable, more realistic, and

cooperative direction.With respect to the affective or emotional

component of attitudes, all the authors

reviewed agree that the principals must becomemore friendly and trusting; a decrease in suspi-

82

cion and a growth of mutual trust is prerequi-site to any enduring resolution. This point isemphasized by Deutsch (1962) who also notesthat a third party may be a substitute object oftrust. The objective here is to eventually trans-fer this trust to the parties themselves.With regard to the cognitive component of

attitudes, more recently connoted by the termimage, third party consultation strives to

improve both the veridicality and the complex-ity of the beliefs which the parties have of eachother. Typically it is maintained that the par-ties hold oversimplified stereotypes and contra-dictory beliefs about each other which simplycould not exist if both were right. Often thebeliefs follow the good-bad mirror image asdescribed by Bronfenbrenner (1961) in the

American-Russian context. The face-to-face,exploratory nature of third party consultationhelps parties to see each other as they reallyare, helps them to appreciate the other side’sframe of reference or point of view, and helpsthem to understand the system constraints orstructural realities within which the other partymust operate. Thus much emphasis here is

placed on clarifications and reperceptionsregarding the causes of the conflict, the issuesin the conflict, and the character of the presentrelationship. Part of these clarifications mayinvolve negative aspects, but a basis for realis-tic responding will be laid and the negativeaspects can be handled constructively ratherthan destructively. This parallels the desiredmodifications in behavioral intentions: the

parties should become oriented toward the

kind of collaborative, problem-solving rela-

tionship outlined above.Further consequences of favorable attitude

change may be the lessening of biased selectiv-ity and distortion in perception, the improve-ment of communication, and the decreased

rigidity in responding to the other party. Thusit is evident that the attitudes of the parties areintimately intertwined with the relationshipbetween them, and that through modificationsin all these areas, the objective of conflict reso-

lution may be simultaneously or ultimatelyachieved.2

The Study of Conflict. In addition to anypractical benefits, third party consultation

provides an unparallelled opportunity for re-search and learning by social scientists with

regard to the process of conflict itself, espe-cially as it is manifested in the thinking andinteractive behavior of the participants. Thusthe method can serve as a vehicle for the

study of conflict which takes the researcher-practitioner out into the real world. It

can be useful not only to test existing socialscience propositions regarding conflict, but

also to develop new models and theories

which otherwise might not emerge. The reac-tions of participants in both of these areas areseen as crucial in testing the validity of generalprinciples (Burton, 1969). Thus third partyconsultation can serve as an essential empiricalcomplement to experimental and theoreticalcontributions to the study of conflict. The

importance of this objective should not be

ignored, especially in preliminary work wherethe other objectives may be inappropriate andidealistic.

THIRD PARTY FUNCTIONS AND TACTICS

The functions or broad strategies of the third

party consultant are carried out in large mea-sure by tactics, or specific behavioral interven-tions. The usage of these concepts parallelsWalton (1969) and has some similarities with

Young (1967). However the term tactic is used

2It is hoped that empirical assessments of actualapplications will accumulatively indicate whether thesocial-psychological emphasis on attitudes in conflictis realistic and also whether the concept of attitudecan be stretched to include all of the aspects enumer-ated here. In addition the rigorous operationalizationof some of these ideas in the form of well-specifieddimensions would help indicate what changes mayactually occur as a result of consultation. These con-siderations are important since the attitudinal

approach involves some rather arrogant and deroga-tory implications on the part of social scientists withregard to the antagonists in a conflict.

83

here in a more specific manner than in Walton(1969), in which some tactics are broad enoughto be seen as procedures or supportive activitiesin the present model-for example obtainingbackground information in a preliminary inter-view. In the ongoing dialogue any tactic mayperform any of the functions (Walton, 1969);however since many tactics are more particu-larly suited to carrying out a certain function,examples of tactics will be categorized withtheir related function for purposes of illustra-

tive description. With regard to the numberand identity of functions, the present schemapresents four as compared to Walton’s (1969)seven. Other contributors to the method are

less analytic, and it is difficult to interpret whatfunction categories they might have used if

they had so chosen. The present classificationcondenses Walton’s (1969), since it combines

some of his categories, and yet broadens histreatment, since it includes additional aspects.Thus it may be more generic, and yet less

applicable to any given application. In anyevent what is suggested is that the strategicfunctions define the very essence of the meth-

od, and are thus more important than all pre-viously defined concepts in the development ofthe model.

Inducing and Maintaining Mutual PositiveMotivation. The term motivation is used here

in a very broad sense to refer to all significantmotives and goals which lead the participantsto enter and sustain the problem-solving con-frontation and to resolve their conflict. The

necessity of some minimal amount of such

motivation is alluded to by several authors

including Blake and Mouton (1961) and Bur-ton (1969). Given this, one aspect of the presentfunction is to stimulate or induce sufficient

motivation to confront the conflict and adoptthe problem-solving orientation before and

especially during the initial stages of the discus-sions. Also where possible, such as in the inter-personal sphere, the third party can assess theparties’ motivation beforehand and decide

whether and when to arrange a confrontation.

1 n addition, he can work toward a balancebetween the motivation of the principals sothat the discussions are optimally productive.Walton (1969) terms these aspects as the func-tion of ensuring mutual positive motivation.Maintaining motivation involves a number ofconsiderations. The third party simply throughhis presence (Douglas, 1962; Young, 1967), butalso through his attributes and capabilities(Muench, 1960; Walton, 1969) serves as theoft-quoted catalytic agent who motivates par-ties toward settlement in bargaining, or towardresolution in consultation. He must establishan atmosphere in which participants do notfear blame (Satir, 1967), and in which the risksof negative evaluations are reduced (Walton,1969). Furthermore the consultant can main-tain an optimum level of tension, thus control-ling an important component of the overallmotivational atmosphere, and simultaneouslycreating conditions in which cognition is lessrigid and communication is less distorted

(Walton, 1969).A related but more general aspect of the

motivational function is that third party con-sultation removes the participants from thehighly charged emotional and tension-riddenfield in which the conflict typically holds them.Once out of the conflict environment and asso-ciated roles, the participants are likely to

become more motivated to resolve their differ-

ences in a constructive manner, and are proba-bly able to view the situation more objectively.This will further aid communication. Walton’s

(1969) function of balancing situational powerduring the discussions is also included here.

Balance is required for the growth of trust anduninhibited dialogue, and the consultant can,within the limitations of his impartiality, usehis control over the situation and his interven-

tionary skills to offset serious imbalances,whether the asymmetry is constant through-out or shifts as the discussion progresses.A final aspect of the motivational function is

stimulating the consideration of common inter-

ests, values, goals, and so on. Sherif has given

84

prime emphasis to the usefulness of superordi-nate goals, i.e., &dquo;those that have a compellingappeal for members of each group, but thatneither group can achieve without participationof the other&dquo; (1966, p. 89), and contends thatsuch goals are awaiting accentuation in everygroup and national relationship. Sherif main-tains that superordinate goals are essential

prerequisites which provide the motivationalbasis for all other conflict-reducing measures,whereas other investigators, for example Blake(1959), contend that mutual problem-solvingmotivation must come first. In any case the

majority of authors agree that superordinateand common goals frequently emerge fromjoint problem-centered discussions, and it is

thus valuable for the third party to create andsustain an atmosphere which facilitates this

process.The tactics used to carry out the motiva-

tional function are relatively straightforwardand in some cases simply require interventionsto describe the necessity and usefulness of aproblem-solving and cooperative atmosphere.The consultant can stimulate hope by interject-ing the possibility of alternative and superiorapproaches to the relationship. In order to

reduce threat and the fear of being blamed, thethird party can refrain from making criticallyevaluative comments, while emphasizing theinfluence of the past on present behavior (Satir,1967) and the principle that the parties’ behav-ior is primarily a reaction to the environment(Burton, 1969) rather than due to any negativeintrinsic characteristics of the parties them-selves. Similarly the effects of poor communi-cations and other factors can be pointed out,while at the same time the good intentions ofthe antagonists are accentuated (Satir, 1967).Walton (1969) has recorded a number of tac-tics to control the tension level such as usinghumor to lessen tension, and to balance situa-tional power such as insuring equal talking-time. Finally the third party can suggestcommon and superordinate goals at appropri-ate times in order to facilitate their emergence,

and can point out present and future dangers of

nonagreement in critical areas of common

interest.

Improving Communication. There are two

major aspects of the communication function:the first is to increase the openness of commu-

nication, while the second is to increase the

accuracy. Walton (1969) specifically enunci-ates the function of promoting openness in the

dialogue as an essential prerequisite to produc-tive interpersonal confrontation. In generalconflict relationships are fraught with cogni-tions which the parties for numerous reasonsare reluctant to divulge, especially in a face-to-face situation, but which must become an

essential part of the discussions if movement

toward resolution is to occur. This is true not

only of embarrassing negative admissions butalso of positive intentions and overtures. Theadmission of plans and intentions is one proce-dure outlined by Janis and Katz (1959) as apossible ethical means of reducing intergrouphostility. However in general such conflict

resolution procedures are typically misper-ceived and, more importantly, not reciprocat-ed, whereas conflict intensifying actions areusually reciprocated, thereby producing escala-tion. If however the third party consultationsituation and the behavior of the consultant

can reduce threat and risk, openness may be

reciprocated and the exchange of positiveintentions could have an illuminating and bene-ficial effect on the relationship of the antago-nists. The second major aspect of the commu-nication function is to increase the accuracyand effectiveness of sending, receiving, inter-

preting, and responding to messages, i.e., all

components of the total communication pro-cess. Walton (1969) enunciates the function of

enhancing the reliability of communicative

signs, and discusses the factors of perceptualselectivity and predisposed evaluation whichmust be overcome. Satir (1967) appears toplace this function above any others, and sug-gests that the family therapist must be seen asboth a model and a teacher of accurate com-

85

munication who follows certain essential rules.

Likewise the intergroup applications (Blake,Shepard, and Mouton, 1964; Muench, 1960,1963) stress improving communication, but theemphasis appears to reach a climax in Burton:

The technique of controlled communication denvesfrom the hypothesis that conflict occurs as a result ofineffective communication, and that its resolution,therefore, must involve processes by which commu-nication can be made to be effective. By effectivecommunication is meant the deliberate conveyingand accurate receipt and interpretation of what wasintended should be conveyed, and the full employ-ment of information as received and stored in the

allocation and re-allocation of values, interests and

goals [1969, p. 49].B

Improving communication is perhaps themost pervasive third party function, since it is

required to clear up initial misunderstandings,to make accurate diagnosis possible, to explorealternative means, goals, and areas of com-monality, and so on. Thus it is essential to all

stages of the process, and is basic to the successof the other functions.

There are numerous tactics a third partyconsultant may undertake to improve commu-nication. To induce openness he should be very

candid, and yet considerate and respectful,both in giving his observations and in elicitingthose of the participants. He can respond todifficult admissions in a nonevaluative manner,and can intervene to moderate overly critical,counterproductive responses by participants.Some of the tactics of sensitivity training areappropriate here, and if the participants areinexperienced in this regard, then the third

party can emphasize such things as givingfeedback, separating thoughts and feelings,adopting a process approach, etc., in the earliersessions (Lakin, 1969; Walton, 1969). Thesetactics also involve improving the accuracy ofcommunication, and can be added to such

things as translating, articulating, summariz-ing, and developing a common language for theparties (Walton, 1969). For example Walton(1969), points out that summarizing either

party’s view, makes the first party feel that he

has adequately transmitted a justifiable view,while at the same time it increases the under-

standing of the second party through decreaseddistortion in his perception. In addition there isthe oft-suggested tactic of having one partyrepeat what the other said, to the satisfactionof all, before he is allowed to respond to it. It isuseful to check meaning given with meaningreceived, to check on invalid assumptions, andto repeat, restate, and emphasize the observa-tions of all parties (Satir, 1967). Similar tacticsappear in related third party methods, for

example Young’s (1967) tactic of enunciation.This diversity and generality thus underscoresthe importance of the communication function.

Diagnosing the Conflict. The first significantproperty of the third party function of diagno-sis is that it occurs in the ongoing context of thediscussions; hence it might be termed process-orientated diagnosis. Emphasis is placed onunderstanding the process rather than the

content of what is happening in the discussionsand in the broader relationship between the

parties. In addition all contributors to the

method agree that the third party can supplyuseful concepts and models concerning conflictand related processes which will help the par-ticipants clarify their thinking about them-selves and their relationship. This material isdrawn from various social science disciplinesand covers a wide range of individual and

social behavior relevant to the study of conflict.Some of these were mentioned under the pro-fessional knowledge requirement of the thirdparty identity. In addition to stressing generalprinciples of conflict, each application mustinject information which is uniquely applicableto its particular sphere, for example interna-tional relations. The manner of injecting infor-mation may vary from straightforward demon-strations, for example on the process of human

perception (Burton, 1969), to the more tenta-tive injection of theory at seemingly appropri-ate times. However the purpose here is not to

provide ready-made explanations for the

behavior of the parties, but to offer suggestions

86

which will help the participants to clarify theirthinking and to evolve explanations which aremutually acceptable to them. In other wordsmuch of the knowledge is offered in an attemptto stimulate self-diagnosis. For example Bur-ton ( 1969) speaks of aiding the parties to standback from their conflict, and to perceive it

from a behavioral point of view, which is con-gruent with the objective frame of referencementioned under the motivation function.

This, combined with the application of appro-priate theory, helps the participants to identifythe issues between them, and to diagnose andunderstand the origins and manifestations ofthe conflict, as well as the processes of prolifer-ation and escalation which may have exacer-

bated it. At the same time the participants’reactions as to the validity and usefulness ofthe conceptual material provided can be anessential ingredient of the learning processwhich the consultant is undergoing as part ofhis involvement in the method.

With regard to tactics, the consultant mayfind it necessary to intervene periodically, and

specifically call for a process orientation. Oftensuch directives will have to be firmly imposedor they will be ignored (Lakin, 1969). The fol-lowing example from Blake, Shepard, andMouton is aptly illustrative. It occurred afterunion representatives had difficulty under-

standing the procedure of developing the

union’s image of itself.

After several minutes, the behavioral scientist inter-vened. He redefined the task for them. &dquo;The presenttask is to describe the character, the quality, of therelationship: that is, typical behavior and attitudes.The task is not to debate technical and legalisticissues.&dquo; At the beginning then, the union membersdid not have the concept of examining the process ofbehavior-to examine and discuss actions, feelingsand attitudes. Their thinking pattern was so deeplyingrained on the content side that they were not ableto think about the dynamics of the relationshipexcept as they happened to erupt in content terms. Itmust be said then, that to step back from content andto take a process approach proved to be very, verytough for the union. Eventually, however, they wereable to do so [ 1964, p. 161 ].

Similarly tactics for introducing informationcan be straightforward. The consultant simplystates, in an active and yet nondirective sugges-tive fashion, what concept, principle, or modelmight be useful in understanding the conflict.Walton explicitly refers to tactics for diagnos-ing the conflict, such as offering alternativeinterpretations of a party’s behavior, and

describes ways of diagnosing conditions caus-ing poor dialogue, such as identifying &dquo;more

basic attitudes or other reality factors that arelimiting the prospects for productive dialogue&dquo;(1969, p. 126). In general any means by whichthe third party can bring important aspects ofthe conflict under flexible and nonevaluative

scrutiny, are regarded as useful tactics.Regulating the Interaction. The function of

regulation is manifested in two general ways.First the third party attempts to regulate or

pace the phases of the interaction, as noted byWalton:

At least two phases of an effective conflict dialoguecan be identified-a differentiation phase and anintegration phase. The basic idea of the differentia-tion phase is that it usually takes some extendedperiod of time for parties in conflict to describe theissues that divide them, and to ventilate their feelingsabout each other. This differentiation phase requiresnot only that a person be allowed to state his views,but also that he be given some indication his viewsare understood by the other principal. An effectiveconfrontation will involve an integration phase wherethe parties appreciate their similarities, acknowledgetheir common goals, own up to positive aspects oftheir ambivalences, express warmth and respect,and/or engage in other positive actions to managetheir conflict [1969, p. 105].

Walton (1969) also points out that a conflictresolution episode may comprise a series ofphases rather than just one sequence. The

essential requirement is that sufficient differen-tiation must occur before integration is

attempted, or the latter will be impossible, atleast in a genuine productive manner. Thesecond main aspect of the regulation functioninvolves controlling and thus facilitating thedialogue, and maintaining the problem-solving

87

atmosphere. Thus at times the consultant is amoderately directive synchronizer and referee,who may synchronize confrontation efforts

both before (Walton, 1969) and during theinteraction, and who can regulate the discus-sions and control precipitous actions whichmight lead to nonproductive warfare (Blake,Shepard, and Mouton, 1964).

Tactics include direct suggestions for differ-entiation or integration, and the injection ofspecific issues or the suggestion of commonali-ties to aid these respective processes. The sug-gesting of areas of discussion corresponds to abroader set of tactics given by Walton (1969)under the heading of initiating agenda. Relat-edly Burton (1969) speaks of techniquesrequired to keep the participants on the mainissues. This leads to the second aspect whereinother relevant tactics, given by Walton, includeprescribing discussion methods to &dquo;assist the

parties in joining the issues and engaging eachother more directly&dquo; (1969, p. 125), and otherassorted counseling interventions. In additionWalton (1969) describes tactics for refereeingthe interaction such as terminating a repetitivediscussion and providing for equal time. Theconsultant must also intervene directly to pre-vent the hostile reemergence of the vindictive

win-lose orientation in which the problem-solving approach ~ould be lost (Blake, Shep-ard, and Mouton, 1964).

THIRD PARTY PROCEDURES, SUPPORTIVE

ACTIVITIES, AND PROGRAM

Procedures refer to broader interventions

wherein the participants are given tasks orexercises with specified objectives. These canadd significantly to the totality of third partybehavior, and may be carried out at the intra-

party level as well as in joint meetings, thusadding more structure and regulation to a

consultation program. In their various inter-

group laboratories, Blake, Shepard, and

Mouton (1964) and Blake and Mouton (1961)have used procedures such as intragroup devel-opment of own and other group’s image, intra-

group diagnoses of the groups’ present rela-tionship, and the exchange and clarification ofimages and diagnoses in joint sessions. Otherexamples include norm-setting conferences tosupport cooperation, post-mortem examina-tions to prevent a return to a win-lose orienta-

tion, joint meetings to gain a priority listing ofissues, fishbowl meetings, and sessions to planfuture steps. Various combinations of such

procedures can serve as the core for a variety ofprograms.

Supportive activities are simple but essentialto the success of the method, before, during,and after the actual discussions. Preliminaryactivities might include inviting participants,formulating relevant propositions regardingthe conflict in question, and designing aspectsof the situation such as the setting. Concurrentactions could involve extracurricular activities

to provide release and vary contacts betweenparticipants, and a variety of procedures toassess participants’ reactions to the programand any changes which occur relevant to theobjectives. Illustrative consequent actions

would be facilitating plans for future collabora-tion, and any follow-up assessments that

seemed useful. As with procedures, supportiveactivities will vary from application to applica-tion. For example many of these activites arecovered by Walton (1969) under the tactic andtactical choice categories of preliminary inter-viewing, structuring the context for the con-frontation, and planning for future dialogue,whereas Burton (1969) speaks more of invitingparticipants and formulating propositions.The term program is reserved for the sequen-

tial combination and expression of all of theaspects of third party consultation covered inthis article. Thus the concept of program is

broader than the concepts of workshop, labor-atory, or confrontation, which typically referonly to the actual interaction of participantsand consultants. Nevertheless the direct inter-

action is the essential core of the method, andhas thus received emphasis here, as elsewhere.Finally the concept of program emphasizes the

88

integration of the various components. Like

any pattern of complex interaction, third partyconsultation may be abstractly analyzed in

description, but is inseparable in practice.

Toward a Critique ofThird Party Consultation

It is suggested that third party consultationis a promising approach for the study and reso-lution of conflict, and that the model presentedabove is useful for purposes of systematizationand stimulation. However the approach is

based on numerous assumptions, both norma-tive and factual, which critics may legitimatelywish to question, and there is much need forfurther work to assess limitations and to

develop the full potential of the method. It canbe argued that the assumptions and limitationsof any undertaking are often better perceivedby observers not involved in and committed tothe process itself. Nevertheless it is appropriatethat the proponents of a method initiate such

discussion, with the realization that reactionsfrom a variety of points of view will engenderneeded clarification. The author acknowledgesthe humanistic and social-psychological biasesof his point of view.

NORMATIVE ASSUMPTIONS

Most of the contributors to the method

appear to assume that predominantly dysfunc-tional conflict is socially undesirable. This is

especially true when the conflict is terminated,often only temporarily, in a violent manner.One of the goals of third party consultation isto minimize the dysfunctional components andthus the costs of conflict, while at the sametime altering basic relationships in a positivedirection acceptable to both parties. In this

way the conflict is terminated in a productiverather than a destructive manner. There is no

suggestion that conflicts of interests in their

many forms can somehow be removed from

human social behavior; on the contrary, the

functional aspects of conflict, especially in

facilitating social progress, are recognized butit is suggested that the mode of conflict termi-nation should be productive and peaceful.Thus we say that conflict resolution entails

management in the economic sense that bene-fits outweigh costs as much as possible, but notin the sense of control which minimizes conflict

behavior through coercion or through settle-ment devoid of acceptance by all parties. Thehumanistic bias of the method leads to the

suggestion that humanitarian considerations

must be added to economic ones in determin-

ing the ratio of benefits to costs. Utilities in thereal world must be determined with much more

than economic criteria in mind. On the ques-tion of management involving coercion, thirdparty consultation assumes that the threat ofviolence to suppress conflict is undesirable, inthe same way that the open use of violence is

undesirable, and thus the method allies

itself neither with social reactionaries nor

social revolutionaries. What it can do is serve

as a vehicle of peaceful change (Burton, 1969)wherein social progress retains past aspects of

lasting value. This is related to the broader

ethical assumption that parties should have apredominant say in decisions which directlyaffect them while at the same time giving con-sideration to the concerns of others.

Such assumptions undoubtedly appear ideal-istic to many, but failure to inject such consid-erations can only result in approaches to study-ing conflict which do not parallel reality, andmethods of terminating conflict which do notresult in genuine and lasting resolution. In

short it is difficult to see how conflict and con-

flict resolution can be conceptualized compre-hensively without ethical considerations. Con-tinuing examination of common values evi-

denced in the major religions and ethical codesof the world, and the relating of these to thestudy and resolution of conflict, is thus seen ascongruent with the method of third party con-sultation as outlined here.

89

FACTUAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT

THE NATURE OF CONFLICT

It is assumed that certain essential similari-

ties occur in most if not all kinds of conflict.

Therefore it is feasible to conceive of a generalmethod of conflict resolution such as third

party consultation.Conflict is a social phenomenon of immense

complexity and variety, and is characterized

by multiple causation both with respect to

origin and development. It can begin with anyone or more of numerous basic or primary is-ues, such as resource scarcity, which throughprocesses of proliferation and escalation, maybecome intertwined with a diversity of secon-dary and more emotional issues, such as hatredand distrust. The reverse order is also possiblealthough probably less prevalent. Thus conflictis typically a mixture of the objective and thesubjective, the sociological and the psychologi-cal.

Conflict appears inherently open to certain

self-aggravating mechanisms which foster

escalation on a variety of dimensions. There isa strong tendency for conflict escalation movesto be reciprocated, often in the interests of

defense and caution, whereas conflict deescala-tion or resolution actions are typically notreciprocated so readily.However most of these aspects of the con-

flict behavior of social entities are predomi-nantly understandable and modifiable reac-

tions to a complex and difficult environment,rather than due to inherent and unchangeableproperties of the entities themselves or of theirrelationship. This is not to deny the importanceof sociostructural determinants of conflict, butto point out that these and many other aspectscan be dealt with and modified if the parties sodesire.

The subjective nature of conflict is especiallyevident in the basic areas of perception, cogni-tion, and communication. Objective factors inconflict also entail subjective evaluations, so

that modifications in tangible differences ofinterest are possible through third party con-sultation.

Conflict, especially the decision-makingcomponent, is a mixture of rationality and irra-tionality. In other words it involves a qualifiedor subjective rationality wherein purposiveintent and behavior is modified by the

imperfections and limitations of the human

perceptual and behavioral systems, both indi-vidual and social, in relation to a diverse and

complicated environment.Finally the complexity of social conflict is

typically reflected in a mixture of functionaland dysfunctional actions and outcomes. Thusit is oversimplified to evaluatively character-ize the phenomenon one way or the other in thisregard.

It is thus evident that third party consulta-tion is highly compatible with a broad concep-tion of social conflict as discussed by Fink, whodefines social conflict as &dquo;any social situationor process in which two or more social entities

are linked by at least one form of antagonisticpsychological relation or at least one form ofantagonistic interaction&dquo; (1968, p. 456).

Furthermore third party consultation is

compatible with the suggestion that a generaltheory of conflict must be supplemented byspecial theories (Fink, 1968). Each applicationof third party consultation should include orrefer to a comprehensive model of the particu-lar kind of conflict in question, and the methodshould be specifically adapted to the peculiari-ties of the system in question. Fortunately inthe major works to date (Walton, 1969; Blake,Shepard, and Mouton, 1964; Burton, 1969)this has been the case. In this way similarities

among applications are made evident, while atthe same time important differences are madeexplicit.The method is also congruent with an eclec-

tic orientation to the study of conflict whichsubsumes a variety of distinguishableapproaches. These subsumed approaches, to

90

draw on Fink’s distinction, are regarded ascomplementary, i.e., &dquo;as potentially com-

patible perspectives, each highlightinga different aspect of the phenomena un-

der investigation,&dquo; rather than compet-

ing, i.e., &dquo;as alternative ways to account for the

same facts&dquo; (1968, p. 428). Thus for exampleBurton’s (1969) work as well as third partyconsultation in general, is consistent with a

combination of Bernard’s (1957) semanticistand sociological approaches, so that the basisof conflict is seen both in the incompatibility ofgoals and values, and in the misunderstandingand ineffective communication between the

parties.

SOME DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There are a number of important questionsto which future work on third party consulta-tion should be directed in order to overcome

some limitations in past work, to engender thefull development of the method, and to ascer-tain the limits of applicability in relation tosome important properties of conflict. In addi-tion the development of third party consulta-tion would be aided by future research on thirdparty intervention in general and on the natureof conflict itself.

There is a basic need for the developmentand use of more comprehensive evaluationtechniques in order to study both the processand outcomes of third party consultation. Fus-

ing the role of practitioner and researcher hasadvantages (Walton, 1969), but often the

assessment of process and of changes broughtabout by consultation has been based solely onthe global impressions of consultants. Theseevaluations may be open to bias and lack rigorand specificity. This is not to deny the useful-ness of the involved observer, especially in

the earlier phases of research, but is to pointout that his descriptive impressions could besupplemented by more objective assessmentdevices such as attitude scales, behavioral and

content ratings, independent structured inter-views, and so on. At the same time experimen-

tal control considerations, such as the use ofcomparison groups, could be built into someapplications where feasible. In these ways someof the evaluation methodology of the socialscientist could be combined with the intuitive

impressions of the sociotherapist to yield partof a laudable composite not often seen in socialresearch.

There is much more need for a variety ofresearch on the method itself, both empiricaland experimental, the results of which couldthen be integrated into the model. A host of

questions may be raised about the relative

importance and interrelations between variousaspects. For example which functions are mostimportant in attaining which objectives, whatcombination of tactics will most effectivelyexpress which function, and so on. It would

help to know which aspects of the third party’sidentity are crucial and what the possibilitiesare for training third party consultants. Manyof the questions on interrelations of variableswithin the model are logically amenable toexperimental or simulation study. This is not todeny the benefits of involvement in the real

world, since the necessary and essential locusof investigation must be in the actual systemunder study and segmental investigations can

only be a supplement to holistic involvement.However experimental supplements can beespecially useful in untangling cause-effect

relationships. Therefore third party consulta-tion would benefit from a complement of

laboratory and real-world investigation, thusovercoming the limitations of each and leadingto the further development of the model.

In order to assess the general applicability ofthe method, it is essential that future applica-tions cover a greater variety of conflict sys-tems. Some very important areas of commu-nity conflict in the educational, religious, andpolitical spheres have not been approached inany substantial way. In general many applica-tions in all arenas are required to assess theapplicability and efficacy of the method.

Unfortunately one cannot expect such develop-

91

ment to proceed very rapidly since each appli-cation is time-consuming and expensive, andsocial scientists typically do not invest so muchin single pieces of work.

It is evident that third party consultation

may have a number of &dquo;built-in&dquo; limitations in

relation to types and properties of conflict.Thus there is much need to assess the applica-bility and efficacy of the method in relation tovariations in such things as parties, issues,intensity, regulation, power discrepancy, andso on. While these are empirical questions,some reasonable conjectures can be made atthe present time.The model appears applicable to a wide

range of parties, due to the relative invarianceof the consultation situation regardless of the

system from which participants are drawn.

However other aspects, such as the functionsand tactics, must go further in taking intoaccount the identity and system constraints ofthe participants, and limitations in these areasrequire exploration.

In relation to basic issues, third party con-sultation seems less applicable to economic and

power conflicts than to ideological or valueconflicts-to draw orr Katz’s (1965) distinc-

tion. Pure economic or power conflicts may be

better settled through what Walton (1969)terms power-bargaining and/or legal-justiceprocesses, rather than through social scienceinterventions. However as such conflicts esca-

late and proliferate, thus adding more subjec-tive issues, third party consultation may

become more relevant. Ideological conflicts

entail the all-or-none quality of moral princi-ples which makes bargaining inappropriate(Katz, 1965) and which would hamper settle-ment or resolution by any procedure. Howeverof the three types of conflict, this one may bethe most open to third party consultation

because of its highly subjective nature and

escalatory potential. This is not to suggest thatall ideological factors are simply distortions;on the contrary they are often realistic compo-nents of the entity’s identity which must be

accepted. Thus the deescalation which consul-tation can induce may result in peaceful coex-istence rather than ultimate resolution. How-ever the most important basis for optimismhere is that superordinate goals in the form ofbroad humanitarian values may be the keyto resolving ideological conflicts. For exam-

ple in the international sphere, there is

the rather functional concern over continuedexistence and the more recently cited universalinterest regarding the welfare of children. Inaddition the common humanitarian values

mentioned earlier may be useful in applyingconsultation to ideological conflict. Manyconflicts are of course complex mixtures ofthese pure types and the method is seen as

more applicable to these since it can helpclarify the various issues involved and thus

point the way to resolution, by first illumin-ating the existing and antecedent conditions.

Third party consultation may have limita-tions at both the low and high ends of theintensity dimension, and may be most applica-ble to moderately intense conflicts. In the

middle range there would be sufficient motiva-

tion and complexity to work with, and yet theconflict is not so intense that parties refuse tomeet or to constructively interact when theydo. At the low end of the intensity continuum,the parties might see intervention as unneces-sary ; at the high end, as inappropriate andunrealistic. 3 This might mean, depending onthe identity of the participants, that third partyconsultation may not be particularly applicableto intense crises.

It would be useful to ascertain the bounda-

ries of applicability in relation to the degree of

3The author has had recent experience in this

regard through attempting to arrange a program ofconsultation with nationals, mainly graduate stu-

dents, from the countries of India and Pakistan. Asthe conflict became more intense during the autumnof 1971, there were increasing reservations regardingjoint discussions, and when full-scale hostilities

began, the project became inappropriate.

92

regulation (Dahrendorf, 1959) or institution-alization (Mack and Snyder, 1957) of conflicts.At the low end there may not be sufficient

norms or rules linking parties to even get themtogether, while at the high end the interactionmay be so rigidly regularized that a novel

approach would be rejected. However some-where in between lies a range of moderatelyunregulated conflicts wherein there is some

absence or breakdown of norms or rules and

yet consultation can be applied. In achievingdeescalation and reaching resolution, the

method will probably point the parties towardjointly acceptable regulatory mechanisms sothat their relationship becomes more stable,and continuing or arising differences can thenbe handled within this more productive frame-work. It is also conceivable that third partyconsultation itself can become institutionalized

in various systems, such as the internationalone (Burton, 1969). It could then join the list ofinstitutionalized conflict resolution mecha-

nisms described by Galtung (1965).The limits of consultation must be assessed

by future work in relation to the dimension ofpower discrepancy between the parties(Stagner, 1967), which is related to Boulding’s(1962) concept of viability. If there is an

extreme power imbalance, it is likely that theapplicability of third party consultation is

severely reduced. In the first place the morepowerful party may have little urge to enterdiscussions since it has what it wants and feels

that it can keep it, and in the second place theweaker party may feel that it will have no realinfluence in such discussions. However poweris composed of many facets in the real world,and with respect to discussions one must alsodifferentiate between external and situational

power. Hence the stating of general relation-ships with regard to power, but also on all ofthe above dimensions, is rather speculative.What is required is experimental and empiricalwork to find out which apparent limitations

actually hold true in the world at large.One way of approaching some of these ques-

tions might be to devise a laboratory simula-tion of a conflict system and third party con-sultation in which the efficacy of the methodand its various aspects could be studied in rela-

tion to assorted aspects of the conflict such as

intensity, regulation, or whatever. This manip-ulative study of relations between variables

could perhaps shed light not only on third partyconsultation, but on the operation of conflictsystems themselves. Such an experimentalprogram would be open to the problem ofextrapolation and related criticisms of artifi-ciality, triviality, etc., which investigators ori-ented to the real world feel obligated to raise,but it might help sensitize the holistic and prac-tical-minded to important relations within

their own work.

There is a very apparent need for future

research to move in the direction of clarifyingthe entire field of third party intervention. Themodel presented above is primarily designed tohelp sensitize third party consultants to some

important dimensions relating to intervention,and to help stimulate systematization in bothresearching and theorizing. But at the sametime it points to the need for a comprehensiveconceptualization of third party intervention ingeneral, and offers both implicitly and explic-itly a number of categories and dimensionswhich could serve as the basis for a broader

taxonomy of third party intervention. Bybuilding on some of the useful but limited

comparisons of different methods, for exampleBoulding (1962), Burton (1969), and Dahren-dorf (1959), it would be possible to construct aset of common dimensions, both qualitativeand quantitative, on which the various types ofintervention could be tentatively located. Eval-uative and comparative research could thenascertain the relative merits and spheres of

applicability of the various methods. In theseways third party involvement could move

towards what is seen here as its necessary and

desirable position in the study and resolution ofconflict.

The direction of further research on third

93

party consultation is highly related to theoriz-ing on the nature of conflict itself. It is sug-

gested that the development of the methodwould be enhanced by the materialization ofeclectic, interdisciplinary theories of conflict.While the history of the study of conflict showssome promising general and descriptive stepsin that direction, much contemporary work hastended toward the premature limitation and

quantification of variables with a resultant lackof applicability to the real world. For example,most of the recent models of cooperation andconflict discussed by Patchen (1970) are sooversimplified as to be of little use to an eclec-tic method of studying and resolving conflict.However what Patchen terms &dquo;influence mod-

els&dquo; (including cognitive, learning, and reac-tion process models) do point up a number ofcrucial processes, and seem more useful for

interpreting third party consultation than dothe models of negotiation.

It is extremely significant, from the presentpoint of view, that Patchen calls not only for anintegration of these diverse models into a moregeneral theory of conflict, but also suggeststhat we need &dquo;to concentrate more of our

empirical work on the testing of models ofsome generality&dquo; (1970, p. 405). It must be

noted that the present argument does not

oppose the rigorous specification and systema-tization of variables, but calls for flexible and

adequate exploration of the relevant data basebefore these processes are overzealously insti-tuted. In this way social scientists may have a

better chance of developing models which are

adequate to the complexity of human socialconflict, rather than simply adequate to someparticular conception of social science.’ Thirdparty consultation is regarded as one morevaluable mechanism by which we can broadenour descriptive intake by direct contact withsome critical processes of real world conflict,

thus increasing both our knowledge and our

options for the future of mankind.

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W., et al The Authoritarian Personality,New York: Harper and Row, 1950.

Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice Garden

City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1958.Bain, H., N. Howard, and T. L. Saaty. Using the

Analysis of Options technique to analyze a

community conflict, Journal of Conflict Resolu-tion, 1971, 15 (2), 133-44.

Bell, R. L., et al Small group dialogue and discus-sion : an approach to police-community relation-ships, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, andPolice Science, 1969, 60 (2), 242-46.

Bernard, J. The sociological study of conflict. In

International Sociological Association. The

Nature of Conflict Paris: UNESCO, 1957,33-117.

Blake, R. R. Psychology and the crisis of states-

manship, American Psychologist, 1959, 14,87-94.

____, and J. S. Mouton. Union-management rela-tions : from conflict to collaboration, Personnel,1961, 38, 38-51.

____, ____. Intergroup therapy, Inter-

national Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1962, 8 (3),196-98.

____, ____, and R. L. Sloma. The union-

management intergroup laboratory, Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 1965, 1 (1), 25-57._, H. A. Shepard, and J. S. Mouton. Manag-

ing Intergroup Conflict m Industry Houston,Tex.: Gulf, 1964.

Boulding, K. E. Conflict and Defense New York:Harper and Bros., 1962.

Bronfenbrenner, U. The mirror image in Soviet-

American relations: a social psychologist’s report,Journal of Social Issues 1961, 17 (3), 45-56.

Burton, J. W. Systems, States, Diplomacy andRules. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1968.

____. Conflict and Communication The Use

of Controlled Communication in International

Relations. London: MacMillan, 1969.Dahrendorf, R. Class and Class Conflict in

Industrial Society Stanford, Calif.: Stanford

University Press, 1959.Deutsch, M. A psychological basis for peace. In

Q. Wright, W. Evan, and M. Deutsch (eds.),Preventing World War III. Some Proposals NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 1962, 369-92.

4Some similar points with regard to an earlierperiod in the history of psychology have been madeby Koch (1959).

94

Doob, L. W. (ed.). Resolving Conflict in Africa TheFermeda Workshop New Haven, Conn.: Yale

University Press, 1970.____, W. J. Foltz, and R. B. Stevens. The

Fermeda workshop: a different approach to bor-der conflicts in Eastern Africa, Journal of Psy-chology, 1969, 73 (2), 249-66.

Douglas, A. Industrial Peacemaking New York:

Columbia University Press, 1962.Fink, C. F. Some conceptual difficulties in the

theory of social conflict, Journal of ConflictResolution, 1968, 12 (4), 412-60.

Follett, M. Creative Experience New York: Long-mans, Green, 1924.

Galtung, J. Institutionalized conflict resolution: a

theoretical paradigm, Journal of Peace Research,1965, (4), 348-97.

Holt, E. B. The Freudian Wish New York: Holt,Rinehart, and Winston, 1915.

Howard, N. The Arab-Israeli conflict: a metagameanalysis done in the spring of 1970. Paper pre-sented to the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of thePeace Research Society (International), Ann

Arbor, Michigan, November 15-17, 1971.Janis, I. L., and D. Katz. The reduction of inter-

group hostility: research problems and hypothes-es, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1959, 3 (1),85-100.

Katz, D. Nationalism and strategies of internationalconflict resolution. In H. C. Kelman (ed.),International Behavior A Social-Psycho-logical Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart, andWinston, 1965, 356-90.

Kelman, H. C. (ed.). International Behavior A So-cial-Psychological Analysis New York: Holt,Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Koch, S. Epilogue. In S. Koch (ed.), Psychology: AStudy of a Science. New York: McGraw-Hill,1959, vol. 3, 729-88.

Klineberg, O. The Human Dimension in Interna-tional Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, andWinston, 1964.

Lakin, M. Arab and Jew in Israel: a case study in ahuman relations approach to conflict. Washing-ton, D.C.: NTL Institute for Applied BehavioralScience, 1969._. Interpersonal Encounter Theory and Prac-

tice in Sensitivity Training New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

Levinson, D. J. The intergroup relations workshop:

its psychological aims and effects, Journal ofPsychology. 1954, 38, 103-26.and R. A. Schermerhorn. Emotional attitud-

inal effects of an intergroup relations workshopon its members, Journal of Psychology, 1951, 31,243-56.

Mack, R. W., and R. C. Snyder. The analysis ofsocial conflict—toward an overview and synthe-sis, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1957, 1, (2),212-48.

MacLennan, B. W. Mental health and school deseg-regation : an attempt to prevent community con-flict, Proceedings of the Annual Convention ofthe American Psychological Association, 1970, 5(pt. 2), 801-02.

Muench, G. A. A clinical psychologist’s treatmentof labor-management conflict, Personnel Psy-chology, 1960, 12 (8, Summer), 165-72.

____. A clinical psychologist’s treatment of labor-management conflicts: a four year study, Journalof Humanistic Psychology, 1963, 3 (1, Spring),92-97.

Patchen, M. Models of cooperation and conflict: acritical review, Journal of Conflict Resolution,

1970, 14 (3), 389-407.Rapoport, A. A new logic for the test ban, The

Nation, 1961, (April 1).Satir, V. Conjoint Family Therapy Palo Alto,

Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1967, rev.

edn.

Shenf, M. In Common Predicament. Social Psy-chology of Intergroup Conflict and CooperationBoston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.and C. W. Sherif. Groups in Harmony and

Tension New York: Harper, 1953._ et al Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation

The Robbers Cave Experiment Norman: Univer-sity of Oklahoma Book Exchange, 1961.

Stagner, R. (ed.). The Dimensions of Human Con-flict Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State UniversityPress, 1967.

Walton, R. E. Interpersonal Peacemaking Con-

frontations and Third Party Consultation. Read-ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

___. A problem-solving workshop on borderconflicts in Eastern Africa, Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 1970, 6 (5), 453-89.

Young, O. The Intermediaries: Third Parties in

International Crises. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton

University Press, 1967.