What is Conflict ?

1. Conflict is actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests. A conflict can be internal
(within oneself) or external (between two or more individuals). Conflict as a concept can help explain
many aspects of social life such as social disagreement, conflicts of interests, and fights between
individuals, groups, or organizations. In political terms, "conflict" can refer to wars, revolutions or other
struggles, which may involve the use of force as in the term armed conflict. Without proper social
arrangement or resolution, conflicts in social settings can result in stress or tensions among stakeholders.
When an interpersonal conflict does occur, its effect is often broader than two individuals involved, and
can affect many associate individuals and relationships, in more or less adverse, and sometimes even
humorous way.

Conflict as taught for graduate and professional work in conflict resolution (which can be win-win, where
both parties get what they want, win-lose where one party gets what they want, or lose-lose where both
parties don't get what they want) commonly has the definition: "when two or more parties, with perceived
incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other's goal-seeking capability".

One should not confuse the distinction between the presence and absence of conflict with the difference
between competition and co-operation. In competitive situations, the two or more individuals or parties
each have mutually inconsistent goals, either party tries to reach their goal it will undermine the attempts
of the other to reach theirs. Therefore, competitive situations will, by their nature, cause conflict but if you
have good sportsmanship or are just fair it won't cause undesirable conflict. However, conflict can also
occur in cooperative situations, in which two or more individuals or parties have consistent goals, because
the manner in which one party tries to reach their goal can still undermine the other individual or party.

A clash of interests, values, actions or directions often sparks a conflict. Conflicts refer to the existence of
that clash. Psychologically, a conflict exists when the reduction of one motivating stimulus involves an
increase in another, so that a new adjustment is demanded. The word is applicable from the instant that
the clash occurs. Even when we say that there is a potential conflict we are implying that there is already
a conflict of direction even though a clash may not yet have occurred.

###CONFLICT Management###

2.Conflict management refers to the long-term management of intractable conflicts. It is the label for the
variety of ways by which people handle grievances—standing up for what they consider to be right and
against what they consider to be wrong. Those ways include such diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule,
lynching, terrorism, warfare, feuding, genocide, law, mediation, and avoidance. Which forms of conflict
management will be used in any given situation can be somewhat predicted and explained by the social
structure—or social geometry—of the case.

Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict resolution. In order for actual conflict
to occur, there should be an expression of exclusive patterns, and tell why the conflict was expressed the
way it was. Conflict is not just about simple inaptness, but is often connected to a previous issue. The
latter refers to resolving the dispute to the approval of one or both parties, whereas the former concerns
an ongoing process that may never have a resolution. Neither is it considered the same as conflict
transformation, which seeks to reframe the positions of the conflict parties.

3.A simple definition of conflict is “any tension experienced when one perceives
another as thwarting or frustrating his or her needs, or her needs, or is
likely to do so.”

Types of Conflict
A conceptual conflict can escalate into a verbal exchange and/or result in fighting.

Conflict can exist at a variety of levels of analysis:

* community conflict
* diplomatic conflict
* economic conflict
* emotional conflict
* environmental resources conflict
* external conflict
* group conflict
* ideological conflict
* international conflict
* interpersonal conflict
* intersocietal conflict
* intrastate conflict (for example: civil wars, election campaigns)
* intrapersonal conflict (though this usually just gets delegated out to psychology)
* organizational conflict
* intra-societal conflict
* military conflict
* religious-based conflict (for example: Center For Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict).
* workplace conflict
* data conflict
* relationship conflict
* racial conflict

Conflicts in these levels may appear "nested" in conflicts residing at larger levels of analysis. For
example, conflict within a work team may play out the dynamics of a broader conflict in the organization
as a whole. (See Marie Dugan's article on Nested Conflict. John Paul Lederach has also written on this.)
Theorists have claimed that parties can conceptualize responses to conflict according to a two-
dimensional scheme; concern for one's own outcomes and concern for the outcomes of the other party.
This scheme leads to the following hypotheses:

* High concern for both one's own and the other party's outcomes leads to attempts to find mutually
beneficial solutions.
* High concern for one's own outcomes only leads to attempts to "win" the conflict.
* High concern for the other party's outcomes only leads to allowing the other to "win" the conflict.
* No concern for either side's outcomes leads to attempts to avoid the conflict.

In Western society, practitioners usually suggest that attempts to find mutually beneficial solutions lead to
the most satisfactory outcomes, but this may not hold true for many Asian societies. Several theorists
detect successive phases in the development of conflicts.
Often a group finds itself in conflict over facts, goals, methods or values. It is critical that it properly
identify the type of conflict it is experiencing if it hopes to manage the conflict through to resolution. For
example, a group will often treat an assumption as a fact.

The more difficult type of conflict is when values are the root cause. It is more likely that a conflict over
facts, or assumptions, will be resolved than one over values. It is extremely difficult to "prove" that a value
is "right" or "correct". In some instances, a group will benefit from the use of a facilitator or process
consultant to help identify the specific type of conflict. Practitioners of nonviolence have developed many
practices to solve social and political conflicts without resorting to violence or coercion.

Conflict can arise between several characters and there can be more than one in a story or plot line. The
little plot lines usually enhance the main conflict.

Conflict also defines as natural disagreement resulting from individuals or groups that differ in beliefs,
attitudes, values or needs. It can also originate from past rivalries and personality differences. Other
causes of conflict include trying to negotiate before the timing is right or before needed information is
available. The following are the causes of conflict:

* communication failure
* personality conflict
* value differences
* goal differences
* methodological differences
* substandard performance
* lack of cooperation
* differences regarding authority
* differences regarding responsibility
* competition over resources
* non-compliance with rules (LO)

A definition of a conflict can be the subject of legal action has three invariants :

* legal
* technical
* emotional

***Causes***
Structural Factors (How the conflict is set up)
* Authority Relationships (The boss and employees beneath them)
* Common Resources (Sharing the same secretary)
* Goal Differences (One person wants production to rise and others want communication to rise)
* Interdependence (A company as a whole can't operate w/o other departments)
* Jurisdictional Ambiguities (Who can discipline whom)
* Specialization (The experts in fields)
* Status inconsistencies
* Need of land, water and food (whole country)

Personal Factors
* Communication barriers
* Conflict management style
* Cultural differences
 * Emotions
* Perception
* Personalities
* Skills and abilities
* Values and Ethics

The assertion that "the conflict is emotionally defined and driven," and "does not exist in the
absence of emotion" is challenged by Economics. In this context, scarcity means that available
resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs. The subject of conflict as a purely rational,
strategic decision is specifically addressed by Game Theory, a branch of Economics.

Where applicable, there are many components to the emotions that are intertwined with conflict. There is
a behavioral, physiological, cognitive component.

* Behavioral- The way emotional experience gets expressed which can be verbal or non-verbal and
intentional or un-intentional.
* Physiological- The bodily experience of emotion. The way emotions make us feel in comparison to
our identity.
* Cognitive- The idea that we "assess or appraise" an event to reveal its relevancy to ourselves.

These three components collectively advise that "the meanings of emotional experience and
expression are determined by cultural values, beliefs, and practices."

* Cultural values- culture tells people who are a part of it, "Which emotions ought to be expressed
in particular situations" and "what emotions are to be felt."
* Physical- This escalation results from "anger or frustration."
* Verbal- This escalation results from "negative perceptions of the annoyer's character."

There are several principles of conflict and emotion.

1. Conflict is emotionally defined-conflict involves emotion because something "triggers" it. The conflict
is with the parties involved and how they decide to resolve it — "events that trigger conflict are events
that elicit emotion."
2. Conflict is emotionally valence — emotion levels during conflict can be intense or less intense. The
"intensity" levels "may be indicative of the importance and meaning of the conflict issues for each" party.
3. Conflict Invokes a moral stance — when an event occurs it can be interpreted as moral or immoral.
The judging of this morality "influences one's orientation to the conflict, relationship to the parties involved,
and the conflict issues".
4. Conflict is identity based — Emotions and Identity are a part of conflict. When a person knows their
values, beliefs, and morals they are able to determine whether the conflict is personal, relevant, and
moral. "Identity related conflicts are potentially more destructive."
5. Conflict is relational — "conflict is relational in the sense that emotional communication
conveys relational definitions that impact conflict." "Key relational elements are power and social
status."

Emotions are acceptable in the workplace as long as they can be controlled and utilized for productive
organizational outcomes and are used at the approiate timing.

Ways of addressing conflict

Five basic ways of addressing conflict were identified by Thomas and Kilman in 1976.

* Accommodation – surrender one's own needs and wishes to accommodate the other party.
* Avoidance – avoid or postpone conflict by ignoring it, changing the subject, etc. Avoidance can be
useful as a temporary measure to buy time or as an expedient means of dealing with very minor, non-
recurring conflicts. In more severe cases, conflict avoidance can involve severing a relationship or leaving
a group.
* Collaboration – work together to find a mutually beneficial solution. While the Thomas Kilman grid
views collaboration as the only win-win solution to conflict, collaboration can also be time-intensive and
inappropriate when there is not enough trust, respect or communication among participants for
collaboration to occur.
* Compromise – find a middle ground in which each party is partially satisfied.
* Competition – assert one's viewpoint at the potential expense of another. It can be useful when
achieving one's objectives outweighs one's concern for the relationship.

The Thomas Kilman Instrument can be used to assess one's dominant style for addressing conflict.

Ongoing conflicts
Many NGOs and independent groups attempt to monitor the situation of ongoing conflicts. Unfortunately,
the definitions of war, conflict, armed struggle, revolution and all these words which describe violent
opposition between States or armed organised groups, are not precise enough to distinguish one from
another. For example, the word terrorism is used indifferently by many governments to delegitimate every
kind of armed revolt and, at the same time, by many rebel groups to delegitimate the armed repression of
sovereign governments.

Counseling
When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a helpful
antidote. Although few organizations can afford the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff,
given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or "listening
with understanding", is little more than being a good listener—something every manager should be.[1]

Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one's feelings—that is, to express them to a
concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for the
frustrated individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal
difficulty that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers
to deal with frustrated subordinates and co-workers.

There are other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in appropriate circumstances.
The great strength of the nondirective approach (nondirective counseling is based on the client-centered
therapy of Carl Rogers), however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that it deliberately
avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for
special psychological training. No one has ever been harmed by being listened to sympathetically and
understandingly. On the contrary, this approach has helped many people to cope with problems that were
interfering with their effectiveness on the job.

Conflict resolution is a range of processes aimed at alleviating or eliminating sources of conflict.

The term "conflict resolution" is sometimes used interchangeably with the term dispute resolution or
alternative dispute resolution. Processes of conflict resolution generally include negotiation, mediation
and diplomacy. The processes of arbitration, litigation, and formal complaint processes such as
ombudsman processes, are usually described with the term dispute resolution, although some refer to
them as "conflict resolution." Processes of mediation and arbitration are often referred to as alternative
dispute resolution.

Methods
There are many tools available to persons in conflict. A way would be not to fight over it, no violence, only
talking out the problem. How and when they are used depends on several factors (such as the specific
issues at stake in the conflict and the cultural context of the disputants). The list of tools available to
practitioners include negotiation, mediation, community building, advocacy, diplomacy, activism,
nonviolence, critical pedagogy, prayer and counseling. In real world conflict situations, which range in
scale from kindergarten bullying to genocide, practitioners will creatively combine several of these
approaches as needed. Additionally, practitioners will often specialize in a particular scale (e.g.
interpersonal, community or international), or a particular variety of conflict (such as environmental,
religious or organizational), and repertoires of tools they find most useful.

Culture-based
Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field is highly sensitive to culture. In
Western cultural contexts, such as the Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution
usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements
that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding the win-win
solution, or mutually satisfying scenario, for everyone involved (see Fisher and Ury (1981), Getting to
Yes). In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam and China, it is also
important to find 'win-win' solutions; however, getting there can be very different. In these contexts, direct
communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be
perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. Rather, it can make sense to
involve religious, tribal or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party,
and make suggestions through stories (see David Augsberger (1992), Conflict Mediation Across
Cultures). Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to resolve because the expectations of the
disputants can be very different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding. A firm position in
diplomacy must be maintained.

Differences in thinking and decision-making

processes
When faced with a complex negotiation task, most Westerners (notice the generalization here) divide the
large task up into a series of smaller tasks.[37] Issues such as prices, delivery, warranty, and service
contracts may be settled one issue at a time, with the final agreement being the sum of the sequence of
smaller agreements. In Asia, however, a different approach is more often taken wherein all the issues are
discussed at once, in no apparent order, and concessions are made on all issues at the end of the
discussion. The Western sequential approach and the Eastern holistic approach do not mix well.

That is, American managers often report great difficulties in measuring progress in negotiations,
particularly in Asian countries. After all, in America, you are half done when half the issues are settled.
But in China, Japan, or Korea nothing seems to get settled. Then, surprise, you are done. Often,
Americans make unnecessary concessions right before agreements are announced by the other side. For
example, one American department store executive traveling to Japan to buy six different consumer
products for her chain lamented that negotiations for the first product took an entire week. In the United
States, such a purchase would be consummated in an afternoon. So, by her calculations, she expected to
have to spend six weeks in Japan to complete her purchases. She considered raising her purchase prices
to try to move things along faster. But before she was able to make such a concession, the Japanese
quickly agreed on the other five products in just three days. This particular manager was, by her own
admission, lucky in her first encounter with Japanese bargainers.

This American executive’s near blunder reflects more than just a difference in decision-making style. To
Americans, a business negotiation is a problem-solving activity, the best deal for both parties being the
solution. To a Japanese businessperson, on the other hand, a business negotiation is a time to develop a
business relationship with the goal of long-term mutual benefit. The economic issues are the context, not
the content, of the talks. Thus, settling any one issue really is not that important. Such details will take
care of themselves once a viable, harmonious business relationship is established. And, as happened in
the case of the retail goods buyer above, once the relationship was established—signaled by the first
agreement—the other “details” were settled quickly.

American bargainers should anticipate such a holistic approach to be common in Asian cultures and be
prepared to discuss all issues simultaneously and in an apparently haphazard order. Progress in the talks
should not be measured by how many issues have been settled. Rather, Americans must try to gauge the
quality of the business relationship. Important signals of progress can be the following:

1. Higher-level executives from the other side being included in the discussions
2. Their questions beginning to focus on specific areas of the deal
3. A softening of their attitudes and position on some of the issues—“Let us take some time to study this
issue”
4. At the negotiation table, increased talk among themselves in their own language, which may often
mean they’re trying to decide something
5. Increased bargaining and use of the lower-level, informal, and other channels of communication.

WORKPLACE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: Strategy

for Successful Resolution

By Lyndsay Swinton
A successful workplace conflict management strategy will reduce hostility and aggressiveness at work.
Conflict management and resolution must address everyone's needs and concerns, including your own,
so in turn you will be more effective and have greater job satisfaction. Learn how to improve your conflict
management skills, with this conflict management article.

First let's clarify definitions. We call it "conflict management" because we expect hostile, aggressive
behaviour from all parties involved in a discussion or issue, and some kind of moderation is required for
things to work out. It doesn't have to be like that.

Using the Conflict Management Model, you can see how behaviour can be expressed in terms of co-
operation and assertiveness, and how that approach works (or not!).
Avoidance - Non assertive, non co-operative

Avoidance is useful, if there is no pressing need to resolve differences now or in the future. Individuals are
indifferent to each other's needs, and issues are evaded or ignored completely. Generally, this is not a
useful long term conflict management strategy as the workplace is never small enough to avoid someone
completely!

Accommodation - Non assertive, co-operative

Accommodation is allowing the other person's needs to be met, usually at the expense of your own. This
is a useful conflict management strategy if you don't care about the issue, or if you have little power in the
relationship or situation. Also, letting the other person have their way once in a while may preserve or
even build a relationship. However, being too accommodating too often can weaken your position to the
point where your voice is never heard.

Compromise - Some assertiveness, some cooperation

Compromise is on the path toward collaboration, somewhere between competition and accommodation.
It's about giving up some ground in order to gain other ground elsewhere. You win some, you lose some!
This is a useful conflict management strategy if time is tight, or if it's not worth exploring things more fully.
Also, compromise is useful when one party can't force their solution on the other.

Competition - Assertive, non co-operative

Competition is the flip-side of accommodation - it's about making sure your own needs are met, no matter
the cost. This win-lose approach is useful if there is an important deadline to meet, or if the relationship
with the other party is not important. However, steam-rolling your way around the workplace may get
things done, but there will be an army of people who won't catch you if you fall.

Collaboration - Assertive, co-operative

Collaboration is a road not often travelled as it can be long, and requires some skill and effort.
Collaboration is about assuming positive intent and seeing things from all sides, in detail. It's about
acknowledging and accepting differences, and exploring alternative solutions that meet everyone's needs
and concerns. It is a useful conflict management strategy when the issues are important to everyone, and
all sides need to be committed to the solution.

Choose the Right Conflict Management Strategy

To make use of the conflict management model, you need to ask some tough questions. Are you
assertive or do you let people walk all over you? Do you co-operate or is it win at all cost? Think about a
workplace conflict, and assess how co-operative and assertive you are, and how assertive and co-
operative the other party is. Maybe changing your approach may change their reaction, and resolve the
conflict both now and in the future.

5 types of Conflict Management

Everyone has their own way to deal with conflict, there are five of them:

* Collaborating
* Competing
* Avoiding
* Harmonizing
* Compromising

There is not one type superior than other, but it is all depends the people, environment and the context.
However there is probably one style that is usually utilized in many situations.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLE

A conflict management style is the pattern of behaviour an individual develops in response to conflict with
others such as differences of opinion. Conflict management styles tend to be consistent over time.[citation
needed] Conflict management is the skill needed to resolve different situations.

Conflict within groups

Conflicts between people in work groups, committees, task forces, and other organizational forms of face-
to-face groups are inevitable. As we have mentioned, these conflicts may be destructive as well as
constructive.

Conflict arises in groups because of the scarcity of freedom, position, and resources. People who value
independence tend to resist the need for interdependence and, to some extent, conformity within a group.
People who seek power therefore struggle with others for position or status within the group. Rewards
and recognition are often perceived as insufficient and improperly distributed, and members are inclined
to compete with each other for these prizes.

In western culture, winning is more acceptable than losing, and competition is more prevalent than
cooperation, all of which tends to intensify intragroup conflict. Group meetings are often conducted in a
win-lose climate — that is, individual or subgroup interaction is conducted for the purpose of determining
a winner and a loser rather than for achieving mutual problem solving.
 Conflicts arise naturally in every arena of daily life.

* Conflict is a fact of personal life.

It happens on the job, between groups in our society, within families, and right in the middle of our most
personal relationships. Conflict is ever present and both fascinating and maddening. The challenges of
dealing with differences have rarely been greater.

When a person arises in the morning at home and greets family or roommates, conflict potential abounds.
In educational contexts, differences occur about goals, procedures, or activities. As customers, our hopes
and desires sometimes diverge from the stated policies of the stores we visit. As employees, daily work
with clients, customers, co-workers, or bosses can be a struggle.

While scholars study conflict management in a variety of contexts (intimacy, work, education, romance,
mixed and same sex friendship, intercultural, organizational, war and peace), the basic elements or
variables of conflict remain stable across contexts.

This Web site presents a general overview of interpersonal conflict management rather than an in-depth
focus on any particular context.

Some qualifiers and limitations:

On the global scale, nations struggle with one another, both diplomatically and militarily. And with the
increased globalization of the world's economy, we are all becoming more interdependent with one
another (Brown 1992). War, international negotiation, and ethnic/racial conflict also are important arenas
of study. This site focuses on interpersonal conflict. Exclusion of other areas of study in no way implies
they are not important or valuable.

This site also discusses interpersonal conflict primarily from a North American viewpoint, with its
supporting theory and research drawn mostly from European-American traditions.

*Conflict is a fact of organizational life.

On the job, "conflict is a stubborn fact of organizational life" (Kolb and Putnam 1992, 311). Rather than
seeing conflict as abnormal, Pondy (1992) suggests we view organizations as "arenas for staging
conflicts, and managers as both fight promoters who organize bouts and as referees who regulate them"
(259). Furthermore, Pondy asserts that in the company, agency, or small business, conflict may be the
very essence of what the organization is about, and if "conflict isn't happening then the organization has
no reason for being." One study surveyed workers and found that almost 85 percent reported conflicts at
work (Volkema and Bergmann 1989). And with an increasing awareness of cultural diversity and gender
equity issues, it is imperative that we become familiar with issues surrounding promotions and
harassment. In fact, one can see training in organizations as a form of preventive conflict management
(Hathaway 1995). The recognition of the prevalence of conflict at work has led to books on mediating
conflict in the workplace (Yarbrough and Wilmot 1995), showing how managers can learn conflict
management skills to intervene in disputes in their organization.

Ongoing, unresolved workplace conflict also has negative impacts that reach far beyond the principal
parties. In an electronics plant, for example, if the director of engineering and the director of production
are unable to reach agreement about quality controls, the staffs of both engineering and production
actively complain about one another, subverting both groups' goals. The continual avoidance of the
problem seeps throughout the organization, affecting everyone who has direct contact with the directors.
If the executive director of a nonprofit agency and her board cannot get along, employees tend to take
sides, fear for their jobs, and, like those above them, wage a campaign discrediting the other group.
Ignoring workplace conflict sets destructive forces in motion that decrease productivity, spread the conflict
to others, and lead to lessened morale and productivity. In one organization one of us recently entered,
the president and CEO was on the verge of reorganizing the structure, affecting 600 people so that two
vice presidents would not have to talk to one another!

*Conflict is a fact of personal life.

In your personal relationships, the study of conflict also can pay big dividends. If you are an adolescent
or parent of an adolescent, it will come as no surprise to you that it takes about ten years for parents and
children to renegotiate roles closer to equality than their earlier parent-child relationship (Comstock 1994),
and at the heart of this renegotiation is the conflict process. The study of conflict can assist in this
renegotiation process, letting you see which styles backfire, which ones work best, and how much
productive power you have available.

We all know that romantic relationships provide a rigorous test of our skills. Siegert and Stamp (1994)
studied the effects of the "First Big Fight" in dating relationships, noting that some couples survive and
prosper, whereas others break up. These communication researchers tell us quite clearly that "the big
difference between the non-survivors and survivors was the way they perceived and handled conflict"
(357). As Wilmot (1995) wrote, "What determines the course of a relationship . . . is in a large measure
determined by how successfully the participants move through conflict episodes" (95).

One of the ultimate testing grounds for romantic relationships is marriage. Almost all spouses report
"occasional marital disagreement" (Bolger et al. 1989; Metz, Rosser, and Strapko 1994). For many
spouses the disagreements may be only once or twice a month, yet for others they may continue over
many days (Bolger et al. 1989). It is common and normal for partners to have conflicts or disagreements,
and in fact, managing conflict is one of the central tasks of maintaining a marriage (Gottman 1994). As
you might guess, learning to constructively resolve conflict is clearly and directly linked to marital
satisfaction. "Findings regarding the link between conflict resolution styles and marital satisfaction have
been consistent in indicating that each spouse's marital satisfaction is positively related to the frequency
with which each spouse uses constructive strategies to resolve conflict" (Kurdek 1995, 153).

Conflict management is a key skill for all successful long-term

relationships.
It may well be that the key skill in all long-term committed relationships is conflict management--certainly
the data on marriages suggest this is true (Gottman 1994). The presence of conflict does not determine
the quality of a marriage; rather, how the couple handles conflict situations determines the quality of the
relationship (Comstock and Strzyzewski 1990). Even beliefs about conflict are more important to marital,
happiness than whether or not the two partners actually agree with one another (Crohan 1992).

How you handle conflict spreads to other members of your family. For example, it has been noted that
adult children who are taking care of their parents usually have high levels of conflict with siblings (Merrill
1996). Learning effective skills for dealing with your younger brother or sister is far better than engaging in
a family dispute that will affect your children and subsequent generations as well.

Immediate impact of unresolved conflict.

Unresolved conflict has tremendous negative impact. It directly affects the parties themselves--the
two vice presidents are so absorbed with their conflict that they cannot carry out their normal job duties. In
relationships, unresolved conflict leads to drifting away from one another and sometimes jettisoning the
relationship entirely. One study even found that the relapse of compulsive gamblers was related to
erupting interpersonal conflicts (Lorenz 1989).

Family research is quite clear about the systemwide effects of destructive marital conflict. First, negative
conflict between the parents reduces the family's network of friends and creates more loneliness (Jones
1992). Second, conflict between the parents tends to both change the mood of household interactions
and also to shift the parents' attention to the negative behaviors of their children (Jouriles and Farris
1992). For example, inter-parental conflict leads to fathers issuing confusing and threatening commands
to their sons (Jouriles and Farris 1992). Third, parental conflict has direct negative impacts on the children
(Comstock and Strzyzewski 1990). Conflict between parents predicts well-being of the children, with more
conflict associated with maladaptive behavior on the part of the kids (Dunn and Tucker 1993; Garber
1991; Grych and Fincham 1990; Jouriles, Bourg, and Farris 1991). For example, children of conflicting
parents see conflict as aggressive and have behavior problems and lower academic performance
(Buehler et al. 1994). Families with delinquent teenagers are found to be more defensive and less
supportive than families without delinquents (Prager 1991). Finally, the effects of destructive conflict
patterns suggest that "ongoing conflict at home has a greater impact on adolescent distress and
symptoms than does parental divorce" (Jaycox and Repetti 1993, 344).

Long-term impact of unresolved conflict.

It isn't just the people who call one another names who have relationship difficulties deriving from
conflict. It has been clearly demonstrated that "couples who never engage in conflict are at long-term risk"
(McGonagle, Kessler, and Gotlib 1993, 398).

There is evidence that parents who either avoid conflict or engage in negative cycles of mutual damage
directly influence the children's subsequent lives. For instance, if your parents avoided conflict, you may
be at risk in romantic relationships (Martin 1990). A modest relationship exists between mothers who
avoid conflict and their daughters' marital satisfaction (VanLear 1992). On the other end of the continuum,
children who are exposed to harsh discipline practices at home (which coincide with a negative and
hostile relationship between the parents) are more at risk for aggression, hyperactivity, and internalizing
by withdrawing, having somatic complaints, and experiencing depressive symptoms (Jaycox and Repetti
1993). The family effects also reach beyond the immediate environment. One study demonstrated that
children from high-conflict homes had much stronger negative reactions while watching a video of angry
adults than children from low-conflict homes (El-Sheikh 1994).

Children's own favorableness toward marriage is directly affected by the conflict between their parents. If
their parents have frequent conflict, the children have a much less favorable attitude toward marriage
(Jennings, Salts, and Smith 1991). A child's general feelings of self-worth are directly affected by
interparental conflict (Garber 1991). Finally, it has been fairly well demonstrated that parental conflict has
long-term effects on children regardless of family structure (Garber 1991). This means that it isn't
primarily the question of whether parents divorce or not that affects the kids but it is the level of conflict
present in either the intact family or the restructured family that impacts the children.

Reasons for employing conflict management skills

In organizational relationships. Conflict management in organizational settings is important for many

reasons.

As an employee, you can learn how to get along with

fellow employees
*

your manager
*

the public

As a supervisor, you can begin to

 *

see conflicts coming

*

learn productive responses

*

get more cooperation from employees

*

help employees resolve their disputes with one another

*

keep interpersonal conflicts from spreading to other parts of the organization

In personal relationships. Conflict management in personal relationships is important for the following
reasons:

How you engage in conflict will directly affect your romantic relationship.
*

The long-term satisfaction of your marriage may hinge on how well you manage conflict.
*

Your skill at conflict management directly affects your family of origin and your children.

You might study conflict so you can be of help to others experiencing interpersonal conflict. To be of most
help you will need specific intervention skills, but understanding conflict dynamics is an absolute
prerequisite for being an effective helper to others--children, friends, family, and work associates.

Finally, learning effective approaches for dealing with interpersonal conflict contributes to overall mental
health. The National Institute of Mental Health funded a decade of studies of depression as one of the
major public health problems. Depression affects one's personal relationships and results in millions of
dollars lost in the workplace due to missed days, medical and counseling costs. Effective conflict
management is one aspect of interpersonal therapy, one of the chosen techniques for dealing with
depression.

Conflict is unavoidable. Why study conflict? Because if we don't, we are more likely to repeat the
damaging patterns we see on the job and in our homes. Examining the dynamics of conflict will allow us
to unpack those dynamics, see what brings on destructive moves, and build more productive options for
ourselves both at work and at home. Since the first edition of Interpersonal Conflict was published in
1978, much more interest in the process of conflict as a natural, inevitable part of communication has
been apparent in research and the popular press. Most writers now know that conflict is not different from
"regular" communication but is a part of the ongoing flow of the communication between human beings.
We might define ourselves as being "in conflict," of varying intensities, many times a day or week. Even
people who vastly prefer peace, harmony, and calm interaction find themselves involved in situations that
are tense, escalating, and uncomfortable. Truly, we do not have the option of staying out of conflict unless
we stay out of relationships, families, work, and community. Conflict happens – so we would be wise to
prepare for it. Recognizing that there are advantages to conflict is the first step to preparing for it.
 There are advantages to conflict.
While the term conflict generally is associated with negative encounters, conflict itself is neither inherently
good nor inherently bad. In fact, engaging in conflict can have positive effects on relationships and
organizations.

Consider these benefits:

Conflict fosters an awareness that problems exist.

*

Discussing conflicting views can lead to better solutions.

*

Managing conflict is quicker and more efficient than letting conflicts fester.
*

Challenging old assumptions can lead to changes in outdated practices and processes.
*

Conflict requires creativity to find the best outcomes.

*

Conflict raises awareness of what is important to individuals.

*

Managing conflicts appropriately helps build self-esteem.

*

Managing conflicts well is a sign of maturity.

*

Conflicts are challenging.

*

Conflicts are exciting.

*

Conflicts encourage people to grow.

*

Conflicts create opportunity.

The Nature of Conflict

Conflict resolution or conflict management? At a training session, a nationally known consultant from a
mediation firm in Boulder, Colorado was asked what the difference was between conflict resolution and
conflict management. The trainer replied that the distinction was one that only an academician could love.
The distinction, however, is important both intellectually and psychologically, as the terms evoke different
conceptions of the nature of conflict. As conflict scholar Lulofs (1994) states, "the way we think about
conflict has important implications for the way we act in situations where conflict exists" (p. 4).
Conflict resolution implies that conflicts can be resolved--finished, completed, overcome, or permanently
settled. The label conflict management was intentionally chosen by communication scholars because the
term evokes a process view of the choices and behaviors that come into play during conflicts.
Communication during conflict requires both choice and action--actions that may or may not solve the
conflict permanently. The term conflict management implies that conflict is not an "on" or "off"
phenomenon. Some conflicts are enduring and the best we can hope for is to manage the level and
manifestation of conflict--to sustain a good working relationship free from negative behaviors or violence.

Communication scholars generally agree that conflict:

* is a process
* is inevitable
* is a normal part of life

Continue through the rest of this section to read more about the nature of conflict.

Characteristics of conflict: What it is and what it is not

To review, conflict has the following characteristics:

* Interpersonal conflict requires at least two people. (Conflict within one’s self, or intrapersonal conflict,
generally is studied by psychologists. Communication students and scholars are interested in
communication between people.)
* Conflict inherently involves some sense of struggle or incompatibility or perceived difference among
values, goals, or desires.
* Action, whether overt or covert, is key to interpersonal conflict. Until action or expression occurs,
conflict is latent, lurking below the surface.
* Power or attempts to influence inevitably occur within conflicts. If the parties really don't care about
the outcome, the discussion probably doesn't rise to the level where we call it a conflict. When people
argue without caring about what happens next or without a sense of involvement and struggle, it probably
is just a disagreement.

Conflict also can be understood by examining what it is not:

* Conflict is not a breakdown in communication, but a process that is ongoing. The communication
process is not like a car that can break or cease to function. Conflict entails communication about
disagreements.
* Conflict is not inherently good or bad. While people may tend to remember only the conflicts that were
painful, conflict itself is a normal part of being human. Harmony is neither normal nor necessarily
desirable as a permanent state of being. It is normal in relationships for differences to occur occasionally,
just as it is normal in businesses for changes in goals and directions to occur. Conflict is normal.
* Conflict is not automatically resolved by communication. Managing conflicts productively is a skill.

Sources for the discussion of the nature of conflict include Wilmot and Hocker, 1998; Lulofs, 1994;
McCorkle and Mills, 1992; McKinney, Kimsey, and Fuller, 1995.

Destructive and Constructive Conflict

In 1969, Deutsch created a view of conflict that remains a usable framework today. Deutsch claimed that
the negative or positive nature of conflict really is determined by people's behaviors; it is not an inherent
quality of conflict itself. Some behaviors produce dysfunctional, destructive and unproductive responses;
other behaviors produce functional, constructive and productive responses.

Destructive conflict. Behaviors that escalate a conflict until it seems to have a life of its own are
dysfunctional and destructive. Destructive conflicts may degenerate sufficiently so the conflict parties
forget the substantive issues and transform their purposes to getting even, retaliating or hurting the other
person. In destructive conflict, no one is satisfied with the outcome, possible gains are not realized and
the negative taste left over at the end of one conflict episode is carried over to the beginning of the next
conflict--creating a degenerating or negative spiral. Destructive conflicts are more likely to occur when
behaviors come from rigid, competitive systems.

Constructive conflict. Behaviors that are adaptive to the situation, person and issues of the moment are
functional and constructive. Many conflicts are a mixture of competitive and cooperative impulses.
Constructive conflicts appropriately balance the interests of both parties to maximize the opportunities for
mutual gains. Constructive conflicts contain an element of creative adaptation born from a realization that
one must know both one's own and the other's interests and goals to be able to find a road both parties
are willing to walk to discover a mutually acceptable outcome. Focusing on the process, not just the
outcome one person desires, is key to productive conflict management.

Sources for the discussion of the nature of conflict include Deutsch, 1973; Lulofs, 1994; Ross, 1993;
Wilmot and Hocker, 1998.

Competitive and Cooperative Conflict

In the 1990's, scholars and practitioners identified two approaches or worldviews regarding conflict:
competitive and cooperative.

Competitive conflict systems (sometimes also termed positional, distributive, win/lose, or adversarial) are
grounded in a win/lose perspective--for one party to "win" the other party must "lose." Competitive
systems often assume a zero-sum or fixed-pie view of all resources.

Cooperative conflict systems (sometimes also termed mutual gains, interest-based, and win/win) are
grounded in a win/win or positive mutual outcome perspective--for one party to win the other party's
needs and goals must also be considered, with the net result that both parties maximize their outcomes.
Cooperative systems often assume that resources can be expanded or traded in creative ways. Instead
of the other party being the opponent, the problem or issue becomes the opponent that both parties must
join in defeating.

The chart below compares the elements of competitive and cooperative conflict.

Mutual Gains Negotiation

While some theorists consider bargaining or negotiation a different area of study from interpersonal
conflict management, negotiation--the give and take involved in making decisions--is a part of everyday
conflict and is, thus, considered here as part of the conflict management process. For example, when
friends have oppositional goals and desires on what movie to see, negotiation occurs. One of the most
popular modern perspectives, the mutual gains approach, was developed by Roger Fisher and the
Harvard Negotiation Project.

Mutual gains negotiation theorists recommend four key ideas to guide behavior during a conflict.

1. Focus on the substance of the problem while keeping an eye on the relationship.
(Roger Fisher’s philosophy is to be: "Hard on the problem; soft on the people")
- analyze the problem from the other’s point of view
- avoid defining the substantive problem as a people problem
- deal with emotions and people problems first
- negotiate how to negotiate

2. Separate interests (needs) from positions (demands or wants)

- look for the need underlying the position
- elicit and give information

3. Develop options where both can profit

- refuse to accept the easy solution
- examine solutions to ensure an idea really can be implemented
- put more than one item on the table at a time so trades can be made
- give up items which are of little interest to you but valuable to the other person

4. Evaluate many possible solutions

Sources for the discussion of the nature of competitive and cooperative conflict include Fisher and Brown,
1988; Ross, 1993; Susskind and Field, 1996; Tjosvold, 1993.

Key Elements of Conflict

Conflict is more than an argument, a fistfight, or a mild disagreement. In the 1950's, conflict became a
focus of study. The study of conflict from the perspective of modern, process-oriented communication
theory began to accelerate in the 1970's.

To discover how conflict differs from others types of communication, learn the key elements in a definition
of interpersonal conflict:

Conflict and interdependence

Perceived incompatible goals
Perceived scarce resources
Interference

Clarifying Confusion About Conflict

Conflict is when two or more values, perspectives and opinions are contradictory in nature and haven't
been aligned or agreed about yet, including:
1. Within yourself when you're not living according to your values;
2. When your values and perspectives are threatened; or
3. Discomfort from fear of the unknown or from lack of fulfillment.
Conflict is inevitable and often good, for example, good teams always go through a "form, storm, norm
and perform" period. Getting the most out of diversity means often-contradictory values, perspectives and
opinions.

Conflict is often needed. It:

1. Helps to raise and address problems.
2. Energizes work to be on the most appropriate issues.
3. Helps people "be real", for example, it motivates them to participate.
4. Helps people learn how to recognize and benefit from their differences.
Conflict is not the same as discomfort. The conflict isn't the problem - it is when conflict is poorly managed
that is the problem.

Conflict is a problem when it:

1. Hampers productivity.
2. Lowers morale.
3. Causes more and continued conflicts.
4. Causes inappropriate behaviors.
Types of Managerial Actions that Cause Workplace Conflicts
1. Poor communications
a. Employees experience continuing surprises, they aren't informed of new
decisions, programs, etc.
b. Employees don't understand reasons for decisions, they aren't involved in
decision-making.
c. As a result, employees trust the "rumor mill" more than management.

2. The alignment or the amount of resources is insufficient. There is:

a. Disagreement about "who does what".
b. Stress from working with inadequate resources.

3. "Personal chemistry", including conflicting values or actions among managers and employees, for
example:
a. Strong personal natures don't match.
b. We often don't like in others what we don't like in ourselves.

4. Leadership problems, including inconsistent, missing, too-strong or uninformed leadership (at any level
in the organization), evidenced by:
a. Avoiding conflict, "passing the buck" with little follow-through on decisions.
b. Employees see the same continued issues in the workplace.
c. Supervisors don't understand the jobs of their subordinates.
Key Managerial Actions / Structures to Minimize Conflicts
1. Regularly review job descriptions. Get your employee's input to them. Write down and date job
descriptions. Ensure:
a. Job roles don't conflict.
b. No tasks "fall in a crack".

2. Intentionally build relationships with all subordinates.

a. Meet at least once a month alone with them in office.
b. Ask about accomplishments, challenges and issues.

3. Get regular, written status reports and include:

a. Accomplishments.
b. Currents issues and needs from management.
c. Plans for the upcoming period.

4. Conduct basic training about:

a. Interpersonal communications.
b. Conflict management.
c. Delegation.

5. Develop procedures for routine tasks and include the employees' input.
a. Have employees write procedures when possible and appropriate.
b. Get employees' review of the procedures.
c. Distribute the procedures.
d. Train employees about the procedures.

6. Regularly hold management meetings, for example, every month, to communicate new initiatives and
status of current programs.

7. Consider an anonymous suggestion box in which employees can provide suggestions.

Ways People Deal With Conflict
There is no one best way to deal with conflict. It depends on the current situation. Here are the major
ways that people use to deal with conflict.
1. Avoid it. Pretend it is not there or ignore it.
a. Use it when it simply is not worth the effort to argue. Usually this approach tends
to worsen the conflict over time.

2. Accommodate it. Give in to others, sometimes to the extent that you compromise yourself.
a. Use this approach very sparingly and infrequently, for example, in situations
when you know that you will have another more useful approach in the very
near future. Usually this approach tends to worsen the conflict over time, and
causes conflicts within yourself.

3. Competing. Work to get your way, rather than clarifying and addressing the issue. Competitors love
accommodators.
a. Use when you have a very strong conviction about your position.

4. Compromising. Mutual give-and-take.

a. Use when the goal is to get past the issue and move on.

5. Collaborating. Focus on working together.

a. Use when the goal is to meet as many current needs as possible by using mutual
resources. This approach sometimes raises new mutual needs.
b. Use when the goal is to cultivate ownership and commitment.
To Manage a Conflict Within Yourself - "Core Process"
It's often in the trying that we find solace, not in getting the best solution. The following steps will help you
in this regard.
1. Name the conflict, or identify the issue, including what you want that you aren't getting. Consider:
a. Writing your thoughts down to come to a conclusion.
b. Talk to someone, including asking them to help you summarize the conflict in 5
sentences or less.

2. Get perspective by discussing the issue with your friend or by putting it down in writing. Consider:
a. How important is this issue?
b. Does the issue seem worse because you're tired, angry at something else, etc.?
c. What's your role in this issue?

3. Pick at least one thing you can do about the conflict.

a. Identify at least three courses of action.
b. For each course, write at least three pros and cons.
c. Select an action - if there is no clear course of action, pick the alternative that
will not hurt, or be least hurtful, to yourself and others.
d. Briefly discuss that course of action with a friend.

4. Then do something.
a. Wait at least a day before you do anything about the conflict. This gives you
a cooling off period.
b. Then take an action.
c. Have in your own mind, a date when you will act again if you see no clear
improvement.
To Manage a Conflict With Another - "Core Process"
1. Know what you don't like about yourself, early on in your career. We often don't like in others what we
don't want to see in ourselves.
a. Write down 5 traits that really bug you when see them in others.
b. Be aware that these traits are your "hot buttons".

2. Manage yourself. If you and/or the other person are getting heated up, then manage yourself to stay
calm by
a. Speaking to the person as if the other person is not heated up - this can be very
effective!
b. Avoid use of the word "you" - this avoids blaming.
c. Nod your head to assure them you heard them.
d. Maintain eye contact with them.

3. Move the discussion to a private area, if possible.

4. Give the other person time to vent.

a. Don't interrupt them or judge what they are saying.

5. Verify that you're accurately hearing each other. When they are done speaking:}
a. Ask the other person to let you rephrase (uninterrupted) what you are hearing from
them to ensure you are hearing them.
b. To understand them more, ask open-ended questions. Avoid "why" questions -
those questions often make people feel defensive.

6. Repeat the above step, this time for them to verify that they are hearing you. When you present your
position
a. Use "I", not "you".
b. Talk in terms of the present as much as possible.
c. Mention your feelings.

7. Acknowledge where you disagree and where you agree.

8. Work the issue, not the person. When they are convinced that you understand them:
a. Ask "What can we do fix the problem?" They will likely begin to complain again.
Then ask the same question. Focus on actions they can do, too.

9. If possible, identify at least one action that can be done by one or both of you.
a. Ask the other person if they will support the action.
b. If they will not, then ask for a "cooling off period".

10. Thank the person for working with you.

11. If the situation remains a conflict, then:

a. Conclude if the other person's behavior conflicts with policies and procedures in
the workplace and if so, present the issue to your supervisor.
b. Consider whether to agree to disagree.
c. Consider seeking a third party to mediate

@@ Resist recruiting allies. It’s reassuring to find evidence that “I’m not the only one who thinks our
boss is a disorganized mess.” But the more you bond over the negative, the larger that negative looms in
your own life.

Focus on strengths. Remind yourself of the contributions your adversary does make—to the team, to the
company, and especially, if you can find it, to your own work. This will take the edge off your annoyance.

Get out of the way. Some personalities push buttons so personally sensitive that you are able only to
cringe. If you can’t diminish the intensity of your reaction, at least reduce your contact.

Look in the mirror. Not everyone at your office is as affected by the other’s personality as you are. If you
can figure out your role in the dynamic or the source of your response, you’ll learn something important
about yourself.
conflict style inventory:
A conflict style inventory is a written tool for gaining insight into how people respond to conflict.
Typically, a user answers a set of questions about their responses to conflict and is scored accordingly.

Most people develop a patterned response to conflict based on their life history and history with others.
This response may fit some situations well, but may be ineffective or destructive in other circumstances.
The goal is to increase people's awareness of their own patterns and bring more options and flexibility
within reach.

The most widely used conflict style inventories are based on the Mouton Blake Axis which posits five
styles of conflict response (see Managerial Grid Model). These include the Jay Hall Conflict Management
Survey, the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, a standard since the 1960s, and the Kraybill
Conflict Style Inventory, a more recent publication that is culturally sensitive.

More extensive personality type instruments are also useful to help understand conflict style differences.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which is based on the work of Carl Jung, and the Gilmore Fraleigh
instruments fall in this category.

Conflict resolution teachers and trainers, mediators, organizational consultants, and human resource
managers use conflict style inventories in their work to help people reflect on and improve their responses
to conflict. Awareness of styles helps people recognize that they have choices in how to respond to
conflict. Since each style has a preferred way of interacting with others in conflict, style awareness also
can greatly assist people in meeting the needs of those they live and work with.

Definitions of conflict on the Web:

* an open clash between two opposing groups (or individuals); "the harder the conflict the more
glorious the triumph"--Thomas Paine; "police tried ...
* opposition between two simultaneous but incompatible feelings; "he was immobilized by conflict and
indecision"
* battle: a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war; "Grant won a decisive
victory in the battle of Chickamauga"; "he lost his romantic ideas about war when he got into a real
engagement"
* a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests; "his conflict of interest made him ineligible
for the post"; "a conflict of loyalties"
* an incompatibility of dates or events; "he noticed a conflict in the dates of the two meetings"
* be in conflict; "The two proposals conflict!"
* opposition in a work of drama or fiction between characters or forces (especially an opposition that
motivates the development of the plot); "this form of conflict is essential to Mann's writing"
* go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afoul of the law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules"
* dispute: a disagreement or argument about something important; "he had a dispute with his wife";
"there were irreconcilable differences"; "the familiar conflict between Republicans and Democrats"
Introduction

The statistics of war are so appalling that they raise a question everyone ought to ask: are such levels of
suffering, imposed by human beings on each other, really necessary? Aren't there better ways of
managing and resolving the differences between people, and groups of people, which bring about war
and violent conflict?

Conflict is a characteristic of human existence. It is part of the dynamic of life that drives us into the future.
But it needs to be managed constructively. When associated with violence, destruction and killing, it is no
longer a healthy part of living. Violent conflict solves few problems, creates many, and breeds more
unhealthy conflict to come.

Conflict has characteristics of its own, and it is possible to analyse its structure and behaviour. When
conflict is understood, it's easier to find ways to predict it, prevent it, transform it, and resolve it.

Starting to understand conflict

What is conflict? It is the expression of disagreement over something important to both (or all) sides of a
dispute. The first important thing to grasp is that it is entirely dependent on the people involved. It
depends on their having a particular point of view, which may or may not have independent facts and
evidence to support it, and on how they behave when they encounter an opposing point of view. Violence
is only one kind of conflict-behaviour, of course.

Q. What other sorts of conflict-behaviour can you think of?

The structure and process of conflicts are much the same, whether a conflict is between individuals or
between groups and nations. The first thing to look for is the immediate cause, the event that triggered it
off. Then it's necessary to look for the underlying causes - the state of affairs which makes that explosion
likely. It is the underlying causes that are particularly important to understand.

Q. But first, what examples of immediate causes can you think of?

When discussing underlying causes afterwards, you'll be able to understand better how the 'triggers'
came about.

Underlying causes of conflict

The way a society is organised can create both the root causes of conflict and the conditions in which it's
likely to occur. Any society which is organised so that some people are treated unequally and unjustly is
likely to erupt into conflict, especially if its leaders don't represent all the members of that society. If an
unequal and unjust society is reformed, then conflicts will be rare.

DISCUSSION/Q. Talk about the society you know best - your community, your neighbourhood, your
school, your college, your workplace - and how it is organised. Can you see likely causes for conflict? Or
can you see how the chance of conflict has been lessened by any particular arrangement?

Human beings have basic needs. Everyone needs to be recognised as an individual with a personal
identity; everyone needs to be able to feel safe. If these needs aren't met, people protest, and protesting
can lead to rebellion and violence. Many people find their identity and security in their cultural group and
its particular point of view - so clashes between different cultural groups also lead to disputes that can
easily turn violent. If people learn to understand that differing cultures are not inevitably a threat to each
other, they will also learn how to manage their differences co-operatively and peacefully.

DISCUSSION/Q. How does your particular cultural group help you have a sense of self and safety? Does
this mean being hostile to people of other cultural groups? When people of one group have friends in
another, are they made to feel that their loyalty is divided?

One aspect of culture is particularly important: it can create language and behaviour that excludes people,
creating 'us/them', 'insider/outsider' situations and using language of discrimination, intolerance and hate.
If people create a society that doesn't see 'difference' and 'diversity' as problems but as valuable for social
growth, many causes of conflict disappear.

DISCUSSION. Talk about the language and behaviour that people use to reject and insult others - the
language of prejudice. Has your part of society welcomed 'difference and diversity'?

The issues of conflict

NOTE: Because we are concentrating on conflict that is expressed in group violence and war, the issues
we mention will mostly be those that arise between peoples and nations. But they can all be translated
into local terms, to match the conflicts that you may know about personally.

1. Conflicts arise when people are competing for the same resources (such as territory, jobs and income,
housing) when they aren't fairly distributed or when there aren't enough to go round. The same applies to
natural resources (cultivable land, fresh water).

2. Conflicts arise when the people are unhappy with how they are governed. The most common conflicts
occur when a particular group wants to be independent from a central government, or when their
viewpoint isn't represented in the government, or when the government oppresses them and doesn't
respect or meet their basic needs.

3. Conflicts arise when people's beliefs clash. Religious and political views are particularly sensitive,
because people often depend on these for a sense of identity and belonging. Sometimes the conflict is
caused by a religious/political group being attacked; sometimes it is because the group is eager to spread
a particular belief and even enforce it on others. Some leaders may aggravate religious and political
differences as part of their tactics for keeping or gaining power.

4. In the same way ethnic differences can cause conflict, or be made to cause it. Again, people's ethnicity
gives them a sense of identity and belonging, and it is threats to this sense which can cause violent
responses, just as individuals may lash out with angry words or gestures when they feel threatened.

Indeed, conflicts of all kinds most frequently arise when people feel threatened - regardless of whether
the threat is real. It is harder to soothe and reassure people when they are frightened or angry.

Q. What examples of conflicts, local or national, can you think of which

(a) seem to have arisen from issues to do with resources?
(b) seem to have arisen from issues to do with management/authority/government?
(c) seem to have arisen from differences of belief?
(d) seem to have arisen from ethnic differences?

Can you pick out from your list any examples where conflict has arisen because people feel, rather than
think, that their identity is threatened? Are there any differences between this sort of conflict and the kind
in which people deliberately organise themselves to struggle for resources or independence?

One particular sort of social and cultural conflict needs a paragraph to itself. This takes place within or
across the boundaries of a community, nation or state, and is deep-rooted and long-lasting. It is most
often the result of poverty, bad management, insecurity, injustice and a failure to meet the people's basic
human needs. The groups in conflict see each other as a threat to society and culture, and as their
aggression grows so does a cycle of violence that is particularly difficult to stop. Everyone mistrusts
everyone else, and crime and lawlessness increase rapidly.

DISCUSSION/Q. What examples of this kind of conflict can you think of, local and national? (Perhaps you
have experienced it yourself, and can tell your own story.) Try to work out the different points of view in
one or more conflict that you have found out about or experienced, as fairly and impartially as you can.

The life-cycle of a conflict

Conflicts are processes, a cluster of events taking time to evolve and reshape. They are always
complicated - after all, they are part of the complex lives of human beings. But there are distinct stages
which conflicts have in common, through which they pass, sometimes over and over again.

Life-cycle 1. Beginning
A conflict begins to take shape as the differences between the conflicting parties become clearly defined
and people begin to take sides openly. The language of 'us and them' starts being widely used, and the
idea of a 'cause' to support emerges on both sides. There is no violence at this point.

If a society is strong and its leaders enlightened, a conflict can be dealt with in a constructive and positive
way at this stage, and violence and a worsening situation can be avoided.

Life-cycle 2. Early growth

But if there are no existing ways of dealing with social tensions and divisions, the conflict grows worse.
The two sides express open hostility, so that 'us and them' now become 'the enemy' to each other. Each
side increases its demands, and its sense of grievance swells. Each side looks for allies from outside the
conflict area, for moral and physical support. Acts of violence begin. If violence is not repressed, the
opposing sides hit back at one another and a destructive and deadly spiral begins.

If one of the sides has greater forces (as governments backed by armies do, for example, when
suppressing civilian opposition) it may at this stage suppress its opponents, but the underlying causes of
conflict remain to break out another day.

Life-cycle 3. Deadlock
Now the two sides are openly at war. Each side perceives the other as the aggressor on whom blame for
the conflict falls. Each side regards itself as having the just cause. The lawlessness of war takes over, as
inhibitions and restraints on violence are abandoned. Three possible situations can now be reached: (a) a
stalemate with each side matching the other in violence; (b) a surge of violence on one side; (c)
exhaustion of strength and resources on both sides ( this has been called 'a mutually-hurting stalemate').

Situation (a) continues the spiral of violence, or may halt it at a particular level which both sides keep up.
Situation (b) can make a change: for example, one side's increased power may cause the other side to
change its tactics. The conflict may return to earlier stages and repeat them. If a side now decides to
withdraw, the conflict remains unresolved and is likely to begin again later.
Situation (c) is the position from which the conflict can most readily move to its next stage.

Life-cycle 4. Looking for a way out

If and when the conflict reaches a stage where both sides are unhappy with the state of things - many
losses, dwindling resources, no achievable 'result' - they may enter into ceasefire agreements. These
provide a pause, which is often used for resting and regrouping before embarking on the earlier stages
again. Sooner or later, however, both sides decide that ending the conflict is a problem they must both
solve, though it has to be done without loss of face. At this point a third party can be introduced to
mediate and negotiate. This can be done, at first, without the leaders of the two sides having to meet
each other.

Life-cycle 5. Settling the dispute or resolving the conflict?

Settlements involve compromise, often with bitter arguments over what the compromises will be. They
seldom lead to a solution in which the two sides can collaborate to establish a firm peace. Settlements
establish ways in which either side is prepared to end conflict at least for the time being.

Conflict resolution, however, looks at the underlying causes which started the conflict and deals with
them, so that the risks of future conflict are removed, or initially reduced. Both sides join together to
achieve this outcome.

Complete resolution of a conflict is difficult after such great hostility, but may be reached after the
passage of healing time if everyone has this aim.

Life-cycle 6. Working together

Now the agreement has to be put into effect. Both sides need to create a new order together, rebuilding
homes, restoring jobs and education, establishing enlightened management/government, disarming
fighters and allowing refugees to return home. Even more important, the two sides have to face up to the
past, share their griefs, and reconcile their differen

Understanding peace
'Peace' is an inconveniently vague word. For some people it is easily associated with 'nothing happening',
an unwelcome 'silence', or straight-up boredom. The problem is that to different people and in different
ways of life 'peace' has different meanings. If we want to transform a conflict situation so that it stops
being violent, we need to know what we mean by the 'peace' we want to achieve.

DISCUSSION/Q. What does the word 'peace' mean to you? It may have several meanings, according to
what you are thinking of. ('Peace and quiet'? 'Law and order'? The end of a quarrel?....)

Peace is also the word for the end of a period of war or violent conflict, and a peace agreement may be
signed to indicate that the period is at least officially over. In this sense, 'peace' means 'the absence of
war or armed conflict'.

DISCUSSION/Q. We began by saying that war or armed conflict 'solves few problems, creates many, and
breeds more unhealthy conflict to come'. Is there any doubt that this is true? And if it is true, can peace as
'the absence of violence' be a real and positive peace?

Certainly most people want to live in societies in which there is healthy conflict leading to change and
progress - we are an evolving species - but in which this is achieved without fighting and killing. Most
people would like it to be possible for individuals, groups and cultures to live together without violent
conflict, though not resisting progress and constructive changes. Most of us would prefer our systems of
law and order to be reasonable and open to reform and change, and certainly not imposed on us by force.
Most of us would like a world in which human rights are respected, cultural differences are seen as
enriching any society, and co-operative efforts are made to deal with problems of poverty, deprivation,
injustice, and abuse of power.

'Change', 'progress', 'reform': all these things need time. They are processes. Conflict is a process. The
movement towards peace is a process. Peace itself is a process. in which nonviolent solutions to healthy
conflict are repeatedly explored and developed in a co-operative and collaborative way.

DISCUSSION/Q. How, do you think, does the existence of the preparations for war (setting up and
training armies, inventing and manufacturing armaments - all of which use up money that could be spent
on improving civilian life ) prevent the evolution of societies to true (and therefore lasting) peace?

Handling conflict
A great deal of research has been and is being done to find the best ways of dealing nonviolently with
conflicts in all their stages, whether they are interpersonal, local, national or international. All kinds of
techniques and practices have been developed and are being tried out. The aim is to transform conflicts
from destructive forces into violence-free, constructive ones. This approach is new. It focuses on the
underlying, deep-rooted causes of conflict, and looks for solutions to them.

Most techniques for handling conflict involve the intervention of individuals or teams of individuals who
aren't involved in the dispute themselves. How they intervene depends on the stage that the conflict has
reached, and on their particular skills.

It also depends on who they are. Locally, you may already know people who have intervened in domestic
and group disputes: they are likely to be people respected by all sides whose job it is to help sort out such
problems. In community and international conflict, some interveners are voluntary peace workers or
members of aid agencies. Some are from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and support agencies.
In international conflicts, some interveners are diplomats from other countries, or representatives of
international organisations such as the European Union (EU) or the United Nations (UN). Neutral
members of the region in conflict also have a part to play.

Handling conflict 1. Prevention

Some peace-makers and teams concentrate on spotting areas in which conflict looks likely to break out,
and then monitoring them closely. At the same time they help the conflicting sides to work out their
disputes without use of violence.

Although this work may well prevent the outbreak of violence and the spiral into all-out war that can
follow, it cannot resolve the conflict until the underlying causes have been dealt with. This requires long-
term projects to identify the causes correctly and provide the sort of support needed to put things right.
The right kind of support also needs to be imaginatively perceived and given. (One kind of support, of
course, is training in peaceful problem-solving.)

At the moment (2001), there simply aren't enough skilled and committed people available to do this kind
of work world wide. It's also difficult, at present, for those who are at work on conflict prevention to make
themselves heard where it counts. Better links between teams, and more effective ways of acting quickly
to prevent violence, have yet to be devised.

DISCUSSION/Q/Action. Talk about the kind of intervention that you think might be welcome to defuse
conflicts that you know of, both from your own experience and from what you've heard. What sort of
support would be most helpful - money? aid? training? reforms? In your study of either current affairs
and/or your own community and neighbourhood, do some detective work yourself to spot possible causes
of conflict, and their underlying reasons.

Handling conflict 2: crisis management

If violence is imminent but hasn't yet broken out, an intervener acceptable to both sides has a chance to
remind them of the destructive risks they are running, and to express anxiety that nobody gets hurt.
Again, this approach may halt the drift towards violence, but the issues disputed have not been dealt with:
violence may still break out at a later date.

If violence has already taken hold, then the interveners' work is primarily an effort to keep it to a minimum
and to deal with the damage it is causing. But interveners can also make sure that news of the conflict,
and information abut it, is spread.

In the past, outside intervention at this stage has often been military, which may sometimes seem
effective in the short-term. In fact military intervention causes long-term (and sometimes irreparable)
damage and makes the conflict much harder to resolve. The introduction of armed intervention simply
adds another combatant to the conflict and reinforces the mistaken idea that violence can resolve it. A
conflict halted by violence retains all its problems and causes, now added to and made worse by death
and destruction.

DISCUSSION/Q. Talk about why people turn so readily to military forces to deal with disputes. Why can
this never be lastingly effective? Find examples from past events, local or national or international, to
show how military intervention fails to resolve the causes of a conflict, and sows seeds of future conflict
as well.

Handling conflict 3: short-term settlements

When a conflict has reached the stage of deadlock, the task of interveners is to establish trust with the
leaders of both sides and to gain their confidence. Leaders are encouraged to talk to neutral consultants
in conflict management, freely, frankly and in private. As a result they may be prepared to consider
mediation.

The task of mediators is to set up a situation in which a settlement can be discussed. Perhaps
surprisingly, it's been found that non-neutral mediators can be as effective as neutral ones; what matters
is that they are skilled.

Official representatives of national or global powers may also intervene. They may offer inducements to
both sides, such as financial aid, to persuade them to abandon violence; or they may make threats, such
as economic sanctions, to get the same result.

Some conflicts 'go to arbitration'. This means that the dispute is studied by an independent individual or
group, who act like a judge in a law court: they decide how the conflict can be fairly and justly settled, and
the conflicting sides may be bound by law to accept the terms.

Once again, however, although the underlying causes of the conflict may have been defined, they haven't
been dealt with. Settlements and ceasefires may be achieved, but they are quite likely to collapse.
Ceasefires in particular give all the sides a chance to rest and re-arm to fight another day. But they can
also provide a period in which more long-term solutions can be discussed.

DISCUSSION/Q/Action. What kind of skills do you think mediators and arbitrators ought to have? What
do you think might be needed to win the confidence of the warring leaders? Choose a conflict and try to
find out how it was settled - were problems dealt with, or were more outbreaks stored up for the future?

Handling conflict 4: long-term solutions

When the conflict has reached the stage when the disputants are ready to look at other options than
violence, real negotiations can begin. They need to be carefully prepared for. The confidence of both
sides must be gained, so that they not only come to the negotiation table but are willing to co-operate
when they get there. Another step is making sure that skilled interveners are in place throughout the war
zone, to help locally in bringing the violence to an end. Links between the people involved in the peace
process and the people in power must be made firm and steady. This period is a tense one: there are
always risks that violence will escalate again. The problems that caused the conflict have not gone away,
and now they are aggravated by feelings of vengeance and anger created by the destructiveness of the
war.

Once negotiations are under way, what do they need to achieve?

DISCUSSION/Q. What is your answer to that question?

There are indeed many answers, all valuable contributions to peace-building. There are perhaps four that
ought to appear in any list:

1. The root causes of the conflict must be understood and plans made to do something about them.
2. Leaders and people on all sides must be sure that the peace process is 'theirs', not other people's
ideas and wishes imposed on them.
3. A realistic and practical timetable for winding down the conflict needs to be agreed by everyone
involved.
4. Everyone must be committed to making the peace process work.

The interveners' work isn't over yet. Where there are difficulties, they can talk to the leaders, clarifying
important issues and acting as a link between them (and between them and local leaders) if
communications break down. Other experts can, and increasingly do, set up organised 'problem-solving
workshops' to help all sides to understand the conflict, the various points of view, and consider a whole
raft of possible solutions. Advanced problem-solving means looking at the conflict and its solutions in the
light of human needs - a perspective that helps the combatants to come together in a joint effort to put
things right. This begins with patiently establishing the aims that they can share.

Culture can be defined as 'the total range of beliefs, values, ideas and activities of a group of people with
shared traditions'. The importance of culture is enormous. Culture conditions people's understanding and
perception of language, behaviour and events - which means that cultural differences can lead to
misinterpretation and misunderstanding. In some parts of the world, a cultural approach to conflict
resolution is often more successful than any other. In these cases, interveners and peace-builders look
for cultural lines of communication that already exist and send messages of problem-solving, nonviolence
and hope along them. In other parts of the world, conflict solving is best helped by mediators from within
the conflict, who already have the trust of their own group and understanding of the prevailing culture. The
aim is never to suppress cultural differences, but to build on them towards a nonviolent future that
benefits everyone.

DISCUSSION. Time to look again at a conflict of which you know personally. Talk about how the search
for long-term solutions, rather than short-term settlements, can bring combatants together with a common
interest in basic needs. If you were a mediator, what would you do?

Handling conflict 5: guidelines

1. Creating peace, like conflict, like life, is a process. It takes time. Building trust between people at war
with each other takes time, and it may need to be very gradual indeed. Every small step towards trust-
building is of value for future peace.

2. When people start talking to each other about ending the conflict, this too is the start of a process.
Nothing can be solved overnight. So first it's a good idea to talk about talking: Where shall we talk? What
about? In what order? Ideas from all sides should be promised a hearing.

3. Destructive conflicts make destructive changes. The destructive changes made to a society in conflict
need to be understood, acknowledged and mended before the process towards a lasting peace can
advance.

4. If a conflict is to be lastingly resolved, constructive social changes may be needed to make sure that
everyone is treated fairly and justly.

DISCUSSION/Q. You may have guidelines of your own to suggest, arising from your own study of
conflict. Let us know what they are, and we will make sure they are shared.

Handling conflict 6: looking ahead

We've already said that there aren't yet enough skilled interveners, mediators, negotiators, peace-builders
at work to help groups at war to solve their problems. There's another problem: those who are already at
work are not yet a fully co-ordinated organisation. There are many different peace-building groups, many
different approaches, and many different timescales. Variety is a good thing, but the experience and
knowledge needs to be shared. A coherent overall network with good communications is needed so that
everyone knows what everyone else is doing and the work isn't duplicated unnecessarily.

This is where the idea of coalition comes in. A coalition is an alliance of people or groups working
together for a shared purpose. Political coalitions quickly encounter problems, because every member
wants to lead. But social coalitions aren't interested in power: they work for the common good of
everyone.

If the different groups, institutions and individuals already working for the peaceful resolution of conflict
form coalitions, then a peace-building network begins to take shape. Where there is a strong network of
strong relationships, war is less likely to recur. It means a coalition of interveners too: members of this
young and exciting profession have a lot to communicate and a lot to learn from each other, all round the
world. As they do, a 'culture of peace' can begin to grow and spread, crossing all boundaries and
enriching all lives.

08/10/09

Clarifying Confusion About Conflict

Conflict is when two or more values, perspectives and opinions are contradictory in nature and
haven't been aligned or agreed about yet, including:
1. Within yourself when you're not living according to your values;
2. When your values and perspectives are threatened; or
3. Discomfort from fear of the unknown or from lack of fulfillment.
Conflict is inevitable and often good, for example, good teams always go through a "form, storm,
norm and perform" period. Getting the most out of diversity means often-contradictory values,
perspectives and opinions.

Conflict is often needed. It:

1. Helps to raise and address problems.
2. Energizes work to be on the most appropriate issues.
3. Helps people "be real", for example, it motivates them to participate.
4. Helps people learn how to recognize and benefit from their differences.
Conflict is not the same as discomfort. The conflict isn't the problem - it is when conflict is
poorly managed that is the problem.
Conflict is a problem when it:
1. Hampers productivity.
2. Lowers morale.
3. Causes more and continued conflicts.
4. Causes inappropriate behaviors.

Types of Managerial Actions that Cause Workplace

Conflicts
1. Poor communications
a. Employees experience continuing surprises, they aren't informed of new
decisions, programs, etc.
b. Employees don't understand reasons for decisions, they aren't involved in
decision-making.
c. As a result, employees trust the "rumor mill" more than management.
2. The alignment or the amount of resources is insufficient. There is:
a. Disagreement about "who does what".
b. Stress from working with inadequate resources.
3. "Personal chemistry", including conflicting values or actions among managers and employees,
for example:
a. Strong personal natures don't match.
b. We often don't like in others what we don't like in ourselves.
4. Leadership problems, including inconsistent, missing, too-strong or uninformed leadership (at
any level in the organization), evidenced by:
a. Avoiding conflict, "passing the buck" with little follow-through on decisions.
b. Employees see the same continued issues in the workplace.
c. Supervisors don't understand the jobs of their subordinates.

Key Managerial Actions / Structures to Minimize Conflicts

1. Regularly review job descriptions. Get your employee's input to them. Write down and date
job descriptions. Ensure:
a. Job roles don't conflict.
b. No tasks "fall in a crack".
2. Intentionally build relationships with all subordinates.
a. Meet at least once a month alone with them in office.
b. Ask about accomplishments, challenges and issues.
3. Get regular, written status reports and include:
a. Accomplishments.
b. Currents issues and needs from management.
c. Plans for the upcoming period.
4. Conduct basic training about:
a. Interpersonal communications.
b. Conflict management.
c. Delegation.
5. Develop procedures for routine tasks and include the employees' input.
a. Have employees write procedures when possible and appropriate.
b. Get employees' review of the procedures.
c. Distribute the procedures.
d. Train employees about the procedures.
6. Regularly hold management meetings, for example, every month, to communicate new
initiatives and status of current programs.
7. Consider an anonymous suggestion box in which employees can provide suggestions.

Ways People Deal With Conflict

There is no one best way to deal with conflict. It depends on the current situation. Here are the
major ways that people use to deal with conflict.
1. Avoid it. Pretend it is not there or ignore it.
a. Use it when it simply is not worth the effort to argue. Usually this approach tends
to worsen the conflict over time.
2. Accommodate it. Give in to others, sometimes to the extent that you compromise yourself.
a. Use this approach very sparingly and infrequently, for example, in situations
when you know that you will have another more useful approach in the very
near future. Usually this approach tends to worsen the conflict over time, and
causes conflicts within yourself.
3. Competing. Work to get your way, rather than clarifying and addressing the issue.
Competitors love accommodators.
a. Use when you have a very strong conviction about your position.
4. Compromising. Mutual give-and-take.
a. Use when the goal is to get past the issue and move on.
5. Collaborating. Focus on working together.
a. Use when the goal is to meet as many current needs as possible by using mutual
resources. This approach sometimes raises new mutual needs.
b. Use when the goal is to cultivate ownership and commitment.

To Manage a Conflict Within Yourself - "Core Process"

It's often in the trying that we find solace, not in getting the best solution. The following steps
will help you in this regard.
1. Name the conflict, or identify the issue, including what you want that you aren't getting.
Consider:
a. Writing your thoughts down to come to a conclusion.
b. Talk to someone, including asking them to help you summarize the conflict in 5
sentences or less.
2. Get perspective by discussing the issue with your friend or by putting it down in writing.
Consider:
a. How important is this issue?
b. Does the issue seem worse because you're tired, angry at something else, etc.?
c. What's your role in this issue?
3. Pick at least one thing you can do about the conflict.
a. Identify at least three courses of action.
b. For each course, write at least three pros and cons.
c. Select an action - if there is no clear course of action, pick the alternative that
will not hurt, or be least hurtful, to yourself and others.
d. Briefly discuss that course of action with a friend.
4. Then do something.
a. Wait at least a day before you do anything about the conflict. This gives you
a cooling off period.
b. Then take an action.
c. Have in your own mind, a date when you will act again if you see no clear
improvement.

To Manage a Conflict With Another - "Core Process"

1. Know what you don't like about yourself, early on in your career. We often don't like in others
what we don't want to see in ourselves.
a. Write down 5 traits that really bug you when see them in others.
b. Be aware that these traits are your "hot buttons".
2. Manage yourself. If you and/or the other person are getting heated up, then manage yourself to
stay calm by
a. Speaking to the person as if the other person is not heated up - this can be very
effective!
b. Avoid use of the word "you" - this avoids blaming.
c. Nod your head to assure them you heard them.
d. Maintain eye contact with them.
3. Move the discussion to a private area, if possible.
4. Give the other person time to vent.
a. Don't interrupt them or judge what they are saying.
5. Verify that you're accurately hearing each other. When they are done speaking:}
a. Ask the other person to let you rephrase (uninterrupted) what you are hearing from
them to ensure you are hearing them.
b. To understand them more, ask open-ended questions. Avoid "why" questions -
those questions often make people feel defensive.
6. Repeat the above step, this time for them to verify that they are hearing you. When you
present your position
a. Use "I", not "you".
b. Talk in terms of the present as much as possible.
c. Mention your feelings.
7. Acknowledge where you disagree and where you agree.
8. Work the issue, not the person. When they are convinced that you understand them:
a. Ask "What can we do fix the problem?" They will likely begin to complain again.
Then ask the same question. Focus on actions they can do, too.
9. If possible, identify at least one action that can be done by one or both of you.
a. Ask the other person if they will support the action.
b. If they will not, then ask for a "cooling off period".
10. Thank the person for working with you.
11. If the situation remains a conflict, then:
a. Conclude if the other person's behavior conflicts with policies and procedures in
the workplace and if so, present the issue to your supervisor.
b. Consider whether to agree to disagree.
c. Consider seeking a third party to mediate.