Nature of Conflict
Conflict: Varied Perspectives; Belief Systems and Values; Interests
There is, perhaps, nothing more common than conflict. As a mediator, conflict may constructively be viewed as resulting from:
· varied perspectives on the situation;
· differing belief systems and values resulting from
· participant's accumulated life experience and
· conditioning; and
· differing objectives and interests.
Effectively dealing with conflict requires the expression and management of participants' varying perspectives, interests, belief systems and values. It is important to meet the participants exactly where they are. Hear from them fully before tying to lead them anywhere. You can not effectively move toward resolution until each participant experiences themselves to be heard on "their perspective," "what they want," and "why."
Common Ground - Overlapping Interests and Interdependence
Along with their sometimes too well-known differences, people in conflict share much common ground, including:
overlapping interests -- participants share in their own relationship, typically have common friends and colleagues, and also have interest in resolving the conflict in an expeditious and economic way;
interdependence -- no single participant has the ability to unilaterally impose a resolution on another without paying a very substantial price for doing so; and points of agreement -- even when there are many disputed issues, there may still be a number of points of agreement or possible agreement. The wise mediator assists the parties to identify what they may be easily able to agree on as a foundation for additional discussions.
The Evolutionary Nature of Conflict
Through the integration of participants' perspectives, interests, belief systems and values, conflict and conflict resolution play important roles in individual and social evolution and development. Conflict arises when one or more participants view the current system as not working. At least one party is sufficiently dissatisfied with the status quo that they are willing to own the conflict and speak up with the hope of being able to influence the situation to arrive at an improved condition. Conflict may be viewed as a process we put ourselves through to achieve a new condition and self definition.
Through conflict we have opportunities to be creatively self-defining. If nothing else, conflict allows us to do things differently in the future. Through the resolution of conflict, we can, if we choose, evolve and redefine ourselves, our relationships, our community, our society and our world.
It is no accident that we most often find ourselves in conflict with those with whom we spend the most time - family, friends, business associates, and fellow organizational members. There is a great benefit, in terms of the quality of our lives, in being able to constructively resolve conflict with those around us.
Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Conflict
Conflict should also be recognized as existing at two levels:
the interpersonal level; and
the intrapersonal level.
In addition to the typically obvious interpersonal dispute, there almost always exists some measure of intra-personal conflict within each disputing party as that party seeks to assert varied, sometimes contradictory, interests. This inner conflict may be evidenced by confusion, inconsistency or lack of congruity. In this condition, the participant has failed to effectively integrate their various "parts" or "voices"to achieve an effective and comfortable representation of personal interests.
Facilitating a Convergence of Means
Conflict Resolution represents a convergence of means (or arrangements for the future), not necessarily participants' interests or perspectives. Participants will commonly come to support the same arrangement oragreement for very different reasons. Conflict resolution does not necessarily resolve tensions betweenparties. Conflict resolution may simply sufficiently align matters to allow each participant to make enoughprogress toward his or her desired ends to prefer declaring there to be a "a state of agreement" rather than theuncertain and stressful "state of disagreement."
Types of Conflict
By evaluating a conflict according to the five categories below -- relationship, data,
interest, structural and value -- we can begin to determine the causes of a conflict
and design resolution strategies that will have a higher probability of success.
Relationship Conflicts
Relationship conflicts occur because of the presence of strong negative emotions,
misperceptions or stereotypes, poor communication or miscommunication, or repetitive
negative behaviors. Relationship problems often fuel disputes and lead to an
unnecessary escalating spiral of destructive conflict. Supporting the safe and balanced
expression of perspectives and emotions for acknowledgment (not agreement) is one
effective approach to managing relational conflict.
Data Conflicts
Data conflicts occur when people lack information necessary to make wise decisions,
are misinformed, disagree on which data is relevant, interpret information differently, or
have competing assessment procedures. Some data conflicts may be unnecessary
since they are caused by poor communication between the people in conflict. Other
data conflicts may be genuine incompatibilities associated with data collection,
interpretation or communication. Most data conflicts will have "data solutions."
Interest Conflicts
Interest conflicts are caused by competition over perceived incompatible needs.
Conflicts of interest result when one or more of the parties believe that in order to
satisfy his or her needs, the needs and interests of an opponent must be sacrificed.
Interest-based conflict will commonly be expressed in positional terms. A variety of
interests and intentions underlie and motivate positions in negotiation and must be
addressed for maximized resolution. Interest-based conflicts may occur over
substantive issues (such as money, physical resources, time, etc.); procedural issues
(the way the dispute is to be resolved); and psychological issues (perceptions of trust,
fairness, desire for participation, respect, etc.). For an interest-based dispute to be
resolved, parties must be assisted to define and express their individual interests so
that all of these interests may be jointly addressed. Interest-based conflict is best
resolved through the maximizing integration of the parties' respective interests, positive
intentions and desired experiential outcomes.
Structural Conflicts
Structural conflicts are caused by forces external to the people in dispute. Limited
physical resources or authority, geographic constraints (distance or proximity), time
(too little or too much), organizational changes, and so forth can make structural
conflict seem like a crisis. It can be helpful to assist parties in conflict to appreciate
the external forces and constraints bearing upon them. Structural conflicts will often
have structural solutions. Parties' appreciation that a conflict has an external source
can have the effect of them coming to jointly address the imposed difficulties.
Value Conflicts
Value conflicts are caused by perceived or actual incompatible belief systems. Values
are beliefs that people use to give meaning to their lives. Values explain what is "good"
or "bad," "right" or "wrong," "just" or "unjust." Differing values need not cause conflict.
People can live together in harmony with different value systems. Value disputes arise
only when people attempt to force one set of values on others or lay claim to exclusive
value systems that do not allow for divergent beliefs. It is of no use to try to change
value and belief systems during relatively short and strategic mediation interventions. It
can, however, be helpful to support each participant's expression of their values and
beliefs for acknowledgment by the other party.
Ways of Dealing with Conflict
There are five common ways of dealing with conflict. Learning about the alternative means of handling conflict gives us a wider choice of actions to employ in any given situation and makes us better able to tailor our responses to the situation. Although listed below in an order of increase in elegance, the reality is that each of us utilizes each of these ways of dealing with conflict at least some of the time. We approach conflict in the way that we believe will be most helpful to us in our life. Our style for dealing with conflict will change with the circumstances.
Denial or Withdrawal
With this approach, a person attempts to get rid of conflict by denying that it exists.
He or she simply refuses to acknowledge it. Usually, however, the conflict does not go
away. It grows to the point that it becomes unmanageable. When the issue and the
timing are not critical, denial may be a productive way to deal with conflict.
Suppression or Smoothing Over
"We run a happy ship here." "Nice people don't fight." A person using suppression plays
down differences and does not recognize the positive aspects of handling the conflict
openly. The source of the conflict rarely goes away. Suppression may, however, be
employed when it is more important to preserve a relationship than to deal with a
relatively insignificant issue.
Power or Dominance
Power is often used to settle differences. Power may be vested in one's authority or
position. Power may take the form of a majority (as in voting) or a persuasive minority.
Power strategies result in winners and losers. The losers do not support a final decision
in the same way the winners do. Future meetings of a group may be marred by the
conscious or unconscious renewal of the struggle previously "settled" by the use of
power. In some instances, especially where other forms of handling conflict are not
effective, power strategies may be necessary.
Compromise or Negotiation
Although regarded as a virtue, compromise ("you give a little, I'll give a little, and we'll
meet each other half-way") has some serious drawbacks. Such bargaining often
causes both sides to assume initial inflated positions, since they are aware that they
are going to have to "give a little" and want to buffer the loss. The compromise
solution may be watered down or weakened to the point where it will not be effective.
There may be little real commitment by any of the parties. Still, there are times when
compromise makes sense, such as when resources are limited or a speedy decision
needs to be made.
Integration or Collaboration
This approach suggests that all parties to the conflict recognize the interests and
abilities of the others. Each individual's interests, positive intentions and desired
outcomes are thoroughly explored in an effort to solve the problems in a maximizing
way. Participants are expected to modify and develop their original views as work
progresses.
Participants come to appreciate that the apparent presenting problem does not need to
limit their discussions. Participants are encouraged to express the full breadth and
depth of their interests, with each participant seeking to identify "value" that they can
bring to the discussion and the maximized satisfaction of underlying interests and
intentions.
Hints for De-Escalating a Conflict:
· Take a deep breath to stay relaxed.
· Look the other person in the eye, with both of you sitting or standing.
· Speak softly and slowly.
· Keep your legs and arms uncrossed. Do not clench your fists or purse your lips.
· Keep reminding yourself: "We can find a win-win resolution to this," and remind the other person of this too.
· If necessary, ask for a break to collect your thoughts or release pent-up tension.
· Give "I messages."
· Paraphrase what the other person has said, asking for clarification as necessary.
· Watch your language. Words that escalate a conflict are: never, always, unless, can't, won't,don't, should, and shouldn't. Words that de-escalate a conflict are: maybe perhaps, sometimes, what if, it seems like, I feel, I think , and I wonder.
· Really listen to what the other person is saying, with the goal of truly understanding that person's point of view.
· Affirm and acknowledge the other person's position.
· Ask questions that encourage the other person to look for a solution. Ask open-ended
· questions rather than ones that evoke a yes or no response.
· Keep looking for alternative ideas to resolve your dispute so that both of you have your needs met.
Conflict Type
· Bankruptcy
· Cultural Group Conflicts
· Education
· Family
· General
· Intergroup Conflicts
· International Conflicts
· Justice System
· Neighborhood Community
· Organizational Conflict
· Other Conflict Types
· Political Conflicts - Internal to One Nation
· Public Policy
· Rights
· Terrorism Crisis
10- Step Communication Breakthrough
Try these suggestions to get your message across:
1. TALK DIRECTLY: If there is no threat of physical violence, talk directly
to the person with whom you have the problem.
2. CHOOSE A GOOD TIME AND PLACE: Discuss the conflict in a quiet
place, when you and the other person are not busy or rushed.
3. PLAN AHEAD: Think about what you want to say ahead of time. Be able
to state clearly what the problem is and how it affects you.
4. GIVE INFORMATION: For example, say something like: "When your
car blocks my driveway, I get angry because I can't get to work on time." Try
not to say things like: "You are blocking my driveway o purpose just to make
me mad!"
5. DON'T BLAME OR NAMECALL: Blaming and namecalling will only
antagonize the other person, and make it harder for him or her to understand
your concerns.
6. LISTEN: During the discussion, relax. Give the other person a chance to
tell his or her side of the story completely, and try to learn how he or she feels
about the situation.
7. SHOW YOU ARE LISTENING: Although you may not agree with what
is being said, tell the other person you hear what he or she is saying, and are
glad you are discussing the problem together.
8. TALK IT ALL THROUGH: Once you start, get all of the issues and
feelings out into the open. Don't leave out the part that seems too "difficult" to
discuss or too "insignificant" to be important. Your solution will work best if
all the issues are discussed thoroughly.
9. WORK ON A SOLUTION: When you have reached this point in the
discussion, be as specific as possible: "I will turn my music off at midnight."
Not: "I won't play loud music anymore."
10. FOLLOW THROUGH: Agree to check with each other at specific times
to make sure the agreement is still working. Then really do it.
Copyright Community Boards of San Francisco
Voicing and Hearing Complaints
What works in voicing and hearing complaints:
Key principles:
· People who complain are great. They just have something that doesn't work for them and they are willing to talk about it.
· Behind every complaint, is some request, which if made and fulfilled would resolve the complaint.
· While you may not be able to satisfy their requests, it will mean a lot to them that you took the time to listen and explain why you could not do what they asked.
If you have a complaint:
1. Find someone who can do something about your complaint or who can at least listen to you and help you determine what might resolve it for you.
2. State your complaint in very specific terms.
3. Identify what would resolve your complaint and who could resolve it?
4. Ask that person to take the action s what would address your issue.
5. If you are unwilling to ask, stop voicing the complaint to others.
If you are hearing a complaint:
1. Listen to the entire complaint. Ask them, "Is there anything else?"
2. If you are not clear about any part of the compliant, ask for clarification.
3. If the complaint is in general terms, ask them to be specific.
4. Once the complaint has been clearly expressed, ask them, "Do you have a request?" or "What would resolve this for you?"
5. Then respond to their requests by either accepting, making a counter-offer or conditional response, or declining or promising to let them know on a specific date.
6. If you decline, explain your reasons and check for understanding.
7. Then ask them if the complaint has been addressed or if they need something else.
8. Thank them for voicing their compliant.
Analytical Problem Solving
Analytical problem solving is a social-psychological approach to dealing with deep-rooted, protracted inter-group and international conflicts. Initially developed by Herbert Kelman and John Burton, this technique is based on the human needs theory of conflict, which says that most deep rooted conflicts are caused by one or more person's or group's inability to obtain
its fundamental human needs--for instance, identity, security, or recognition. ''] By identifying the underlying needs that are lacking, parties are often able to redefine the conflict in a way that facilitates joint problem solving and collaboration, when such was impossible before. (This is especially true when conflicts are defined in terms of mutually exclusive interests.) Unlike interests, needs are usually mutually-reinforcing, rather than mutually exclusive.
Although the term "problem solving" makes the approach sound similar to the settlement-oriented approach to mediation, the approach is actually more closely aligned with the transformative approach to conflict. For instance, a great deal of emphasis is put on identifying and examining each parties' perspective on the problem, including the parties' values, interests, prejudices, hopes, fears, and needs. As with transformative mediation, emotions are not avoided, but are dealt with directly. Much emphasis is put on mutual recognition of the needs of the other party and empowerment of the parties to approach their mutual problem in new ways.
Although the ultimate goal is resolving the conflict, in almost all of the cases in which this approach has been used, the workshops have focused on a much shorter-term goal of increasing mutual understanding and respect. Many workshops have been held, for instance, between Israelis and Palestinians. These workshops helped lay the groundwork for the Oslo accords, and have continued since Oslo in efforts to facilitate the agreement’s implementation. However, in that situation, as most others like it, obtaining true resolution and a complete peace is a very slow process. Increasing mutual understanding and interpersonal (rather than inter-societal) trust is the short-term goal, which is being achieved by this workshop process.
Interests, Needs, and Values
Interests, needs, and values are three concepts that underlie most conflicts, yet are often confused. The term "interests" is generally used to refer to the things people want in a conflict. They are often, though not necessarily, material. They are generally negotiable--people are willing o trade more or less of one interest for more or less of another. Yet conflicts are often defined in terms of incompatible interests. It is assumed that there is only so much of something (money, land, jobs, etc.) andthe more one person or group gets, the less the other side gets. Thus, framing conflicts in terms of interests often yields a "zero sum" or "win-lose" situation.
Needs, on the other hand, are also things people want in a conflict. However, they are usually not material things, but intangible things such as security, identity, and recognition. According to John Burton, one of the leading human needs theorists, the "reflect universal motivations. They are an integral part of the human being." Needs differ from interests in several important ways. First,they are non-negotiable. People will not trade away their identity or their security. Identity and security are fundamental, so necessary to all human satisfaction, that people will do almost anything, even things that violate fundamental norms, or diminish their ability to attain their interests, in an effort to obtain their fundamental needs. A second difference is that needs are usually not mutually exclusive. While interests may be structured in such a way that only one side can get what it wants, needs are usually mutually supporting. Insecurity tends to breed aggression against others; security allows one to leave others alone. Similarly, if one's own identity is secure, then there is no need to threaten another's sense of identity. If a group's identity is denied, however, it is likely to respond by asserting its identity against that of the opposing group(s).
Values are also fundamental beliefs that are non-negotiable. Values are the "ideas, habits, customs and beliefs that are a characteristic of particular social communities." (Burton, Conflict: Resolution and Prevention, p. 37.) Values determine however understand the world and how we respond to it. As with needs, if one's values are questioned or threatened, one is likely to respond strongly to defend one's values.
Since values and needs are non-negotiable, these concepts are not dealt with as often in settlement-oriented forms of dispute resolution, which tend to focus much more on interests. Transformative forms of dispute resolution, however, tend to deal with values and needs much more extensively, believing that having an understanding of those issues must preceded any work on interest negotiation.
[1] Here recognition generally refers to something one gets, but it links to Bush and Folger's definition of recognition because it cannot be received if it is not given.
Specific Techniques
· Active Listening
· Anger Management
· Apology
· Brainstorming
· Caucus
· Coalition Building
· Co-Mediation
· Communication Techniques
· Communication, Intercultural
· Community Policing
· Conflict Assessment
· Cooling Off Period
· Deadline
· De-escalation
· Distributive Bargaining
· Empathy
· Empowerment
· Escalation
· Face Saving
· Fact Finding
· Forgive / Forgiveness
· Framing
· Ground Rules
· I U Statements
· Integrative Bargaining
· Mediation-Transformative
· Negotiation Strategy
· One Text
· Public Hearing
· Reality Testing
The unit of the Conflict Resolution Process is the mental heartbeat and the measuring rod of the social sciences. The unit process, a six role-state periodic natural science phenomenon and a formal and moral transformation process transforms chaos to order or a conflict to its resolution. It is easy to detect, qualify, quantify and graphically portray this unit entity by observing the formal sequencing of thoughts in any sample of creativity. I first became impressed with this pattern when I noticed that that it repeated itself across several generations of the Greek Cosmogony. View the Science Behind the Art
For example, these are the six role states in the life of Kronos, son of Uranus and father of Zeus and the Olympians as described in the Greek Cosmogony:
1.Stress
Kronos is oppressed as a child by his father, Uranus
2.Response
To escape this oppression, Kronos murders his father Uranus and Uranus dies
cursing Kronos to the same end, to be killed by his children.
3.Anxiety
As a result, when he becomes a father, Kronos fears that his children will
murder him.
4.Defense
To prevent this, Kronos kills them by eating them as soon as they are born.
5.Reversal
However, Kronos' wife rescues the last one, Zeus, who eventually kills Kronos in order to avenge and free his siblings
(who remained alive inside Kronos).
6.Compromise
Finally, the dying Kronos curses Zeus to be killed by his children in return.
|
