CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Thompson Olusegun Ewata

ewatths@yahoo.com
Manuscript (unedited) for the chapter CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION from
Business Communication for Academic and professional Purposes by Thompson Olusegun
Ewata © 2010, Jimsalaam Publishing Lagos Nigeria
People in life have different ways of looking at things. This difference affects the way they react
to situations and events. Because we do not see things in the same light, there is bound to be
disagreement between us and the disagreement affects our relationships. Our not seeing things in
the same light could be because of what some of us termed as minor issues. We one person calls
a minor issue is seen as a very big deal by another person. You can imagine a marriage
relationship that was terminated because of irreconcilable differences. What the irreconcilable
differences entail is the way the couple in question use the toothpaste. One of them presses the
paste from the top and the other from the bottom. How can anyone imagine that something as
trivial as the use of the toothpaste in the morning or evening could have such dire consequences?
Our perception affects the way we react to issues.
War is simply a conspicuous conflict, hiding innumerable smaller conflicts waiting to
explode later. In fact, war and these smaller conflicts are merely effects and relatively
minor. They are caused by far more intense inner conflicts. If these inner conflicts are
faced and neutralized as they arise, there will be no war, no Hitler. Hitler might even
become Mother Teresa. If Saul the persecutor could become Paul the apostle, if Milarepa
the mass murderer could become a most revered spiritual teacher, would it have been
impossible for Hitler to become Mother Teresa? (Cheng, 2005:12)
From this we can see that before a misgiving escalates into a confIlictual event, the cause is
something that no one takes time to isolate and address appropriately. Most often, the cause(s)
of wars are as minor as the use of the toothpaste. The use of the toothpaste does not cause war
but an inner conflict.
Merriam-Webster defines conflict as a mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing
needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands. The Microsoft Encarta sees conflict as: a
disagreement or clash between ideas, principles, or people. From both perspectives we can see
that conflict involves clash of interests, whether real or imaginary. Most often the interest that
man perceives to have clashed could be imaginary. On the other hand, the interest that clashes
can be real so that people can actually identify the interest. If we take it that interest clashes, then
we can also say that the clash of interest can cause the goal of any relationship to become
unrealizable.
Robbins (2007) defines conflict as: a process that begins when one party perceives that another
party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares
about. As humans, we care about so many things, the type of company we keep, the restaurant or
club we patronize or are members of, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the school we
attend and the ones our children should attend and so on are all things we greatly value and have
ways of shaping our views in life. The problems in human relationships start when we begin to
see things we value being taken lightly by others. For example in Nigeria, for some time now,
there has been a constant reoccurrence of religious and ethnic conflict in the northern part of the
country. When you ask the cause(s) of these problems you find out that a group believes that
another group(s) is trampling on the things they take as important. We can infer from this that
within human relations exist potential sources of conflict. If not well handled or managed, the
resulting conflict in human relationship can truncate the existence of such relation. If the
relationship is truncated getting it back on course may not be possible. It could lead to total
destruction of values and lives like the ones in northern Nigeria, the world wars, the 30 months
civil war in Nigeria, the dissolution of marriage, the non actualization of the organization goal
and so on.
Traditional view of conflict
The traditional view of conflict sees it as a horrible thing with harmful consequences for those
involved in it – man, nation, institution etc – and as such must be avoided. This view has been
around for so long that we do not even question the rationality of it.
The view is held because of:
• Poor communication: most often under the traditional view people do not see the need
to communicate. They do not communicate their needs and do not see why they should
try and understand the other party(ies) views.
• Lack of openness: most of the time, thing are shrouded in secrecy. You do not know and
cannot know unless you belong. A person that does not belong is taken to be different,
not to be trusted and subsequently isolated. When people are kept in the dark it, they tend
to feel neglected, isolated and the attendant distrust and mistrust will set in. when this sets
in, conflict ensues.
• Failure to respond to every members needs: in a relationship whether personal, social,
religious, military, employment (employee-management) when every member is not
taken into consideration in the scheme of things, it leads to misunderstanding which is
not properly handled can have severe consequences.
Types of conflicts in business organizations:
• Interpersonal: this is the conflict that occurs between the individuals in the organization.
Business organizations are made up of people. These people have different backgrounds
and as such will have differences in opinion which will from time to clash.
• Intrapersonal: conflict may arise within an individual. Such conflict that arises from
within the individuals may arise from stressful conditions of work (ABWA)
• Between individuals and group: members of an organization may feel aggrieved by the
policies of decisions of the group
• Intergroup conflict: a section of the organization may feel aggrieved by certain things
other groups in the organization are doing. This can be explained in term of a country
where groups within the country that are supposed to work together do not trust
themselves. This is what happened in the religious and ethnic conflicts of northern
Nigeria, the Niger Delta Youths and the Multinationals in Nigeria. The senior and junior
workers disparity over pay in some organizations
• Between organization: the Pepsi and Coke rivalry
Sources of conflict
When we disagree, it could be because of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, language,
culture, values, beliefs (Iwu), the aggressive impulse of man, divergent of interest (Torrington &
Hall), money, job, goals, environmental factors, authority and power, nature of work itself
(ABWA) and the rest. Whatever the source(s) we should consider the fact that conflicts are
beneficial to human relationships.
Merits of conflicts
Whether we like it or not, even the worst case scenario of conflict has something positive
attached to it. Conflict serves some useful or beneficial purposes for man and organization.
• Clear the air: when the situation has been identified it helps every get the feeling out of
the open in the process making the people involved voicing out the misgivings. When
they voiced out their misgivings the relationship is strengthened.
• Introducing new rule: after a conflict has been identify and brought to the open, it leads
to the introduction of new rules. We need to state that in must organization conflicts, it is
the issue of rules that causes the problem in the first place. When the issue has been
identified and ironed out, to make every one happen, new rules need to be introduced. We
must say that it is thanks to the conflicts that new rules that will take care of all the
interests are introduced. For example, when the government of Nigeria introduced a
pump price of fuel to the people and the organized labour and civil societies together with
the people kick against it and bring the state into a halt, there is always a new rule in
terms of a new price regime that we be introduced. If for instance, the government raises
price to N100 per litre. After the conflict the price has created the government and the
organized labour may agree to say N60 per litre. This is the introduction of new rules.
• Modifying goals: with conflict, each party we have to modify their goals so as to make
room for progress. When the conflict has been identified, each size needs to shift to a
more comfortable or a position that we make everyone happy without necessarily loosing
face. The words of a former United States Secretary of States captures the modifying of
goals for us: a lasting peace could come about if neither sides sought to achieve
everything that it had wanted; indeed, that stability depended on the relative satisfaction,
and therefore the relative dissatisfaction, of all the parties concerned.
• Understanding of respective positions: conflict makes everyone involved in the conflict
to have a better picture of the other party(ies). Prior to the conflict, each group only
understand its own position. However, with articulation of the alternative views, people
now see themselves in a new light and have a new understanding of the issues and the
people involved.
On the other hand, conflict has some drawbacks to every relationship. These drawbacks could
be:

• Time and energy wasting: when the issue(s) that lead to the conflictual situations are
not properly cleared, the result is a waste of everyone’s time and energy. The time that
would have been used for other ventures (that is not saying managing the conflict is not a
productive venture) would now be channelled on brings a settlement – whether lasting or
temporary.
 • Emotional stress for participants: the need to find a way out of any conflict brings
stress to those involved in finding the way out. The thought of been involved in a
negation of conflict on it own causes so many negotiators stress as they have to go from
one party to the other in a number of ways and time. Going to and fro could be either
physically to see the parties or psychologically in trying to understand each party’s views
and why they are holding on to them. Then they will have to think of the best way
possible to make every one comfortable with the options available to managing the
conflict(s).
• Organisational stress: the organisation that is the epicentre of the stress goes through its
own stress as they may experience strikes, working to rule, lack of enthusiasm on the part
of the workers, lack of cooperation and mistrust and other types of stress. Which will not
make the environment to be ideal for everyone to work in. in the case of countries,
wherever that is the centre of the conflict because the theatre of war with destruction of
lives and properties, the physical and psychological trauma it cause the people and
governments too form part of the organisational stress as there will the need for
reconstruction either mentally of physically.
• Worsening communication: when conflicts start, the amount of communication in the
relationship becomes damaged. Those involved are concerned more to confirm their own
viewpoint than to convey understanding, and there are perceptual distortions like
stereotyping and cognitive dissonance (Torrington & Hall).
Management of conflicts

There are various ways of managing conflict depending on the nature and intention of the parties
involved. While some people will all together run away from the conflict others see it as
something to be ignored. It is important to mention that each approach taken in managing the
conflict has its own has its own results

• Sweeping under the carpet approach: here the conflicting issue is not giving a place of
prominence. The management or people at the helm of affairs are aware of the conflicting
issue(s) but would rather let it be by either trivialising it or not making any
pronouncements. If for example most members of an organisation travelled over a long
distance before getting to their offices and the public transportation is on the verge of
collapse if it has not collapsed yet management still frowned at workers getting late to
work or not making effort to look at the psychological and physical toil it this has on the
workers, the management of such organisation could be said to have swept the issue
under the carpet. However, as we all know, dirt under the carpet does not go away but
piles up there.
• Avoiding: here the people involved away the issue whenever possible and withdraw
when confronted (Adler & Elmhorst). The way the people involve avoid the issue could
be to physically refuse to address the issue or the people the issue concerned by not
meeting with them when the need arises or taken or responding to correspondences from
them. The avoidance could be psychological: this is done by denying that a problem
exists or that it is serious, repressing emotional reactions, and do on (Adler & Elmhorst).
The short benefit could be that since the actors do not meet face-to-face, confrontation is
avoided. This style damage relationship, though.
 • Accommodation: this style entails that the person or group at the helms of affairs give in
to allow thing to remain normal. Rather than trivialise or avoid the issue, they give in on
some grounds.
• Competing: this style does not take every issue as equal. The people or person in charge
of affairs believes that the goal of one group supersedes that of others. For example
between management and workers, the management may hold on to the view that
management has the final say on any issue since they have the money and the
organisational structure and power.
• Collaborating: this style sees everyone as important and as working towards achieving
the same desired goal(s). Every side is taken as important and necessary towards solving
or improving the issue at stake.
• Compromising: each side to the conflict holds the view that they must give something to
achieve the overall goal; they compromise on their stands for things to normalise.
However, whatever the conflict management style taken will be based on some factors.

Factors Governing Choice of Conflict Style

• Consider Avoiding:
i. When an issue is genuinely trivial, or when more important issues are pressing
ii. When you have no chance of winning
iii. When the potential for disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution
iv. To let others cool down and regain perspective
v. When the long-term costs of winning may outweigh short-term gains
vi. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively

• Consider Accommodating:
i. When you find you are wrong
ii. When the issue is important to the other party and not important to you
iii. To build social credits for later issues
iv. To minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing
v. When harmony and stability are more important than the subject at hand
vi. To allow others to learn by making their own mistakes
• Consider competing:
i. When quick, decisive action is vital (e.g. emergencies)
ii. On important issues where unpopular actions need implementing (e.g., cost cutting, enforcing
unpopular rules)
iii. When others will take advantage of your non-competitive behaviour

• Consider Collaborating:
i. To find solutions when both parties’ concerns are too important to be
compromised
ii. When long-term relationship between parties is important
iii. To gain commitment of all parties by building consensus
iv. When the other party is willing to take a collaborative approach
• Consider Compromising:
i. When goals are important but not worth the effort or potential disruption of more
assertive modes
ii. When opponents with equal power are committed to mutual exclusive goals
iii. To achieve temporary settlement of complex issues
 iv. To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure
v. As a backup, when collaboration is unsuccessful
Thomas (1997:487)