A female healthcare worker comforts a male healthcare worker

How can we continue working together?

This is one of the most important questions in healthcare today. Conflict happens, and moving forward is essential. Getting it right though can be difficult. The CHIC Scale is a free validated instrument to help individuals and organizations improve working relationships through better collaborative leadership.

Reconciliation

Conflict resolution is an essential part of any collaboration. The CHIC Scale provides a means to help develop healthy professional relationships across an organization. The first section of the CHIC Scale is called “Reconciliation”. The new name Reconciliation was selected because these question items collectively embody the concept that a transgression has been made and some correction is required.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) in Action

Reconciliation describes a specific function of maintaining a working relationship. While this is an individual score, it is also a reflection of the organizational community of that person. Consider that the Social Exchange Theory (SET) offers a useful lens for this perspective. Reciprocity regulates the exchange of resources (Gouldner, 1960)1. Favors and transgressions are repaid in kind (Gergen, 1969)2.

Over time, relationships influence the quality of these exchanges (Blau, 1964)3. One study showed that the extent of positive and negative comments was the most significant difference between successful and unsuccessful teams (Losada & Heaphy, 2004)4. The ratio for best team performance was found to be at least 5.6:1 positive to negative comments (Zenger & Folkman, 2013)5.

Protecting the channels of communication

While maintaining the foundation for effective communication is essential for collaborative leadership, occasionally, bonds must be intentionally mended. An apology can be a challenging but vital social ritual to keep communication going and resolve conflict.

It has been observed that three significant barriers affect the quality of the apology. Collectively they have low regard for the wronged person, a threat to one's self-image, and the perception that an apology was ineffective (Schumann, 2018)6.

The first two of these barriers were addressed in the development of this instrument, but they did not proceed through the factor analysis process. However, the third barrier regarding the effectiveness of an apology performed very well during the same factor analysis process. This barrier is addressed and explored here in greater detail.

Protecting the Working Relationship

According to John Kador, author of The Effective Apology (Kador, 2010)7, there are five dimensions of an effective apology: Recognition, Responsibility, Remorse, Restitution, and Repetition. Together these dimensions provide an essential capability to maintain the lines of communication after a conflict has occurred. It is also a means to preserve the credibility of the person offering the apology. Since each of the dimensions provided can express a complete thought individually, they provide a means to gauge the respondent’s aptitude for navigating crucial conversations.

1. I take responsibility for my mistakes. (Responsibility)

2. I express my regret for my mistakes to those who are affected by them. (Remorse)

3. I apologize when I am wrong. (Recognition)

4. When I am wrong, I make a genuine effort to correct my mistake. (Restitution)

5. When I am wrong, I offer a sincere pledge that my mistake will not happen again. (Repetition)

Sub-Scale Validation

The 21 questions of the CHIC Scale has been validated as a reliable psychometric instrument. The first five question of the CHIC Scale has also been validated as a separate stand-alone tool to evaluate a person’s current capability to navigate conflict resolution. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) calculated these five questions with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .849 for a sample size of 558. Information for scoring the instrument and each sub-scale is provided here.

The CHIC Scale is a copyrighted instrument that is free for public use.

Footnote:

1Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 161-178.

2Gergen, K. J. (1969). The psychology of behavior exchange. Reading, Mass. Addision-Wesley.

3Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological inquiry, 34(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x

4Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams: A Nonlinear Dynamics Model. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 740–465. http://dx.doi.org.ucark.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0002764203260208

5Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2013, March 15). The Ideal Praise-to-Criticism Ratio. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/03/the-ideal-praise-to-criticism

6Schumann, K. (2018). The psychology of offering an apology: Understanding the barriers to apologizing and how to overcome them. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417741709

7Kador, J. (2010). Effective apology: Mending fences, building bridges, and restoring trust. ReadHowYouWant. com.