Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for BBA

III Semester examination of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University

DELHI COLLEGE OF ADVANCED STUDIES

B-7,SHANKAR GARDEN,

VIKAS PURI,NEW DELHI-110018

It is to be certified that the project report titled“CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT” is based on my original research work and
not been submitted for any degree or diploma of any
university.

The work of author(s) has been acknowledged at appropriate

place(s).

DATE: ------------------------
(Candidate’s sign)
Name: Rohit madhok
--------------------------
(Counter signed)
Name: Mr. Amit girdharwal
Final project is a unique methodology in management
course. The system includes different pattern to develop
management skills among students in the wake of
growing competition at a higher level. They get to have
a real life exposure in the market. At DELHI COLLEGE
OF ADVANCE STUDIES, we as the students of BBA
(GEN), have the privilege of the system.

I feel myself privilege at having the opportunity to thank

the people who have helped me at all stages of the
project.

I express my deep sense of gratitude to our respected

director sir, DR. NARENDER MOHAN, and MR. AMIT
for their valuable support to this project report, making it
a success.
And last but not the least; I am highly obliged to all the
FACULTY MEMBERS for their helpful criticism and
useful suggestions.
 INTRODUCTION

Conflict Management
Conflict is a fact of life. Although many people think only of its ugly or
unfortunate results, some conflict .

Conflict is a fact of life. Although many people think only of its ugly or
unfortunate results, some conflict is actually necessary and good. It all depends
on how a particular conflict is handled.

Children, like adults, face many conflicts in their lives. Maybe someone teases a
child, a best friend sudenly doesn't want to be best friends anymore, or the "in"
group at school won't let him or her sit with them in the cafeteria. Children also
encounter conflicts at home, often involving possessions, responsibilities, or
privacy. In their neighborhoods, they may have to deal with older children who
bully and threaten them. As they grow older, they may face difficult moral
decisions as they deal with peer pressure to try drugs and alcohol.

Children learn how to manage conflict in the same way they learn to do many
other things--by watching what goes on around them. They learn from you;
from teachers and other adults; from other children; and from television,
movies, and other media. How can we all help them learn the best strategies?
Here are some tips:

• Give your child some special time each day. This may be really tough in
today's busy world, but experts tell us that 20 minutes of positive adult
attention per day dramatically reduces children's aggressive behavior.

• Teach your child to ask for attention constructively. Sometimes the

purpose of a fight with a brother or sister is to get attention. Encourage
your child to ask for attention by expressing needs. Catch your child doing
something right. Praise your child for doing well, rather than
reprimanding him when mistakes are made.
 • Teach your child to recognize the feelings of others. You can point out
when someone is happy, sad, scared, worried, and so on. When children
learn to recognize what somone else is feeling, they are better able to
respond appropriately.

• Listen first, then help your child negotiate a solution. Acknowledge your
child's feelings abotut a conflict before helping to work out a solution.

• Use positive methods to discipline your child. Avoid yelling at him or her
or using physical punishment. Through your example, your child will see
that force is not the best or only choice.

What is conflict?
Inter-communal conflict occurs when actual and perceived incompatibilities
result in hostile violent action. What differentiates a conflict from political
struggles or peaceful competition is that it involves the potential of destructive
violence. The threat of violence is positively correlated with the willingness of
the parties to use violent means to reach their unilateral and seemingly
incompatible goals. However, as much as all incompatibilities do not necessarily
lead to destructive violence, all incidents of violence do not lead to the onset of
intractable conflict. Thus, incidents of violence by themselves cannot be seen as
sufficient for a serious conflict to break out and take root.

The underlying factors that cause a conflict are usually in place long before the
outbreak of violence and it is the escalation in particular (and the move from
political to violent) that turns a situation of peaceful competition into a
destructive, deadly conflict. In the best of all possible worlds, Conflict
Prevention would be sufficient for preventing any escalation to take place.
However, for conflict prevention to be effective, early warning indicators have to
be detected and addressed before violence becomes too destructive. Preventive
measures employed at an early stage need to address the causes that lie at the
root of the conflict. An escalation of violence is often preceded by a perceived
incompatibility of interests between groups, asymmetric inter-group power
relationships, as well as triggers that serve to mobilize or rally a group around
its grievances.
Similarly, de-escalation alone is often not sufficient for a conflict to end. For
peace to become sustainable, Peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction
activities (Peace building and State building) are often essential in order to
address the underlying causes of a conflict long after the violence has ended and
to prevent a conflict from re-erupting.

The toolkit focuses on Inter-communal or group conflict, involving individuals

who can be identified as belonging to one of at least two interacting groups, who
perceive their goals as incompatible. Collective behavior and group
identification, often functions of perceptions, are important characteristics of
group conflict that can serve to increase its destructiveness, making resolution

more difficult.

Due to its focus on inter-communal conflict, the toolkit deliberately excludes

official inter-state conflicts but allows for those internal cases that may have
important international characteristics. Most inter-communal conflicts are
internal and identity-based, involving minority groups fighting against the
central authority of the state, or two minority groups competing for the same
state resources. Because many ethnic groups transcend national boundaries
however, inter-communal conflicts often become international in scope while
still being identity-based in character.

Quantifying Conflicts
The Correlates of War project tries to compile accurate data in order to create
an inventory of war and conflict. Since the 1960's David Singer and Melvin
Small and others have built on previous studies, refining definitions, improving
the collection of statistical data, and conducting continuous research on factors
associated with war in the Correlates of War project. This and similar studies
have sometimes been criticized because they offer no explanation of war, but
merely record facts and figures. It defines war in the following terms: "An
international war is a military conflict waged between (or among) national
entities, at least one of which is a state, which results in at least 1,000 battle
deaths of military personnel."

However, this category leaves out all those inter-communal conflicts that have
1,000 civilian deaths or more, (but less than 1,000 military deaths). It also
excludes those conflicts that are not fought by regular military forces but by
more rudimentary means, or conflicts where neither one of the adversaries
represent a government. It is useful to look at some other conflict datasets, such
as Ted Robert Gurr's compilation of "Minorities at Risk" and ethno-political
conflict, allowing for the inclusion of more limited intra-state conflicts. Another
such dataset is the Conflict Data Project created at the University of Uppsala,
Sweden. The Uppsala project divides conflict and war into three categories:
minor armed conflicts, intermediate armed conflicts, and war. A Minor armed
conflict has fewer than 1,000 battle-related deaths during its lifetime; an
intermediate armed conflict has more than 1,000 battle-related deaths during its
lifetime, but fewer than 1,000 in any particular year. Finally war, has more than
1,000 battle-related deaths during any particular year.

The Life Cycle(s) of a Conflict

A conflict is not a static situation, but a dynamic one – the intensity level
changes over a conflicts’ life cycle. An understanding of the conflict cycle is
essential for an understanding of how, where and when to apply different
strategies and measures of conflict prevention and management.
Over time, numerous suggestions and models of conflict patterns have been put
forward. Among these models and suggestions, a number of patterns stand out.

Conflicts tend to be described as cyclical in regard to their intensity levels, i.e.

escalating from (relative) stability and peace into crisis and war, thereafter
deescalating into relative peace. Most scholars also agree that these cycles are
reoccurring. This proposition is strongly supported by empirical research on
conflict patterns. Here, it should also be noted that many scholars add stable,
sometimes called durable, peace as an additional phase in which the conflict is
considered resolved – i.e. the reoccurring pattern of the conflict has been
stopped.
Also, most models divide both the escalation and de-escalation of the conflict
cycle into phases. It can also be noted that in many cases the conflict model has
taken the form of a U, or an upside-down U. The division into phases, and the
cyclical perception of conflict, has also become the starting point for research on
conflict prevention, management and resolution. In principle, conflict
prevention, conflict management and conflict resolution are regarded as
applicable in different phases of a conflict. In sum, conflict prevention measures
are designed for the early phases, before a conflict has become manifest
(open). Management measures are applied in later phases when a conflict is
manifest, but before violence has occurred. Conflict resolution could,
on the other hand, be applied in the de-escalation phase after a violent
conflict has occurred. As illustrated below, the division into phases is a much
simplified description of reality. Also, there are disagreements both
within the academic and the policy community, as well as between the two as to
how these measures should be understood and applied.
The model of the life-cycle of conflicts presented here includes both the conflict
process itself and possible prevention, management and resolution measure
(Model #2). This conflict cycle is presented in the form of an upside-down U-
curve, illustrating a conflict cycle in its most simplified form, i.e. the rise from
stable peace to war and the de-escalation to stable peace. The model presented
below is an ideal model of the conflict cycle, an analytical construction
developed to simplify analysis.

As will be noted in the coming section (see “Different conflict curves”), this
model is simplified and is not always in line with the empirical reality.
Origin of a conflict
 In organizations conflicts originates from different sources. A Rahim (2000)
classifies conflicts based on their origin as Affective conflict, Substantive
conflict, Conflict of interest, Conflict of values, Goal Conflicts, Realistic and
Non-Realistic conflicts, Institutionalized versus Non-institutionalized conflicts.
Conflicts can also be classified into different categories based on their
origination as Intra personal conflicts, Interpersonal conflicts, Intra group
conflicts, and Inter group conflicts.

Each conflict based on its origin has different impact on the organization.
Conflicts create friction between participating entities and most of the time end-
up in changing either the situation or the behavior. Conflicts initiate discussion
and review/revalidation of an existing condition. The resultant change in
situation or behavior by a conflict may be good or bad. The resultant review or
revalidation of a situation/behavior by a conflict may be unnecessary and time
consuming. If an organization does not want a change in its situation or in its
behavior, that organization may look at conflict as destructive or a waste of
time. Other organizations may look at conflicts differently.

The Nature of Conflict

The nature of conflict refers not to the goals or causes over which the conflict is
fought, but rather to the elements or characteristics that determine group
cohesion and mobilization. Examples of such elements are religion, identity,
poverty, or ideology. Conflicts can be influenced by many of these elements
simultaneously, making classification quite difficult. The importance of a
conflict's nature is that it often influences how a conflict is fought, the level of
violence tolerated by the parties and the degree of difficulty entailed in
managing or resolving it. Most conflicts that began after the fall of Communism
and the end of the Cold War are identity-based. Ethnicity, religion or ideologies
thus provide the glue that brings combatants together enough to make them feel
like they have something that they collectively must defend.

It is important to note that ethnicity, religion or differing identities do not - in

and of themselves - lead to conflict. Such differences can lead to political action
given that they have collective consequences for a group in its relation to other
groups and with states. Gurr writes that if ethnicity or religion is a major
determinant of a group's security, status, material well-being, or access to
political power, they are likely to also become a highly salient part of that
group's identity. Furthermore, when identity is highly salient, it is likely to be
the basis for mobilization and political action.

As defined by Gurr, ethnic groups simply share a "distinctive and enduring

collective identity based on a belief in common descent and on shared
experiences and cultural traits." Nevertheless, cultural traits do not always
constitute the cleavages that define the parties to a conflict, and groups with a
common identity are not always politically active. However, Gurr's Ethno
political groups are identity groups, whose ethnicity has political consequences,
resulting either in differential treatment of group members or in political action
on behalf of group interests. Many times ethnic or religious groups feel a real or
imagined threat to their rights, culture, language and existence. Whereas some
groups will respond by fighting for minority rights or for equal representation
in a national government, others will fight for autonomy, independence or
separation from that government.

Ethnicity (sometimes expressed through religion) is often a very strong

mobilizing factor because it tends to deny its group members the ability to join
other, more cross-cutting alliances, such as women's rights groups or worker's
movements.

Furthermore, group asymmetry and systematic differential treatment are often

based on ancient social divisions and complex histories of mutual control and
oppression. Over time, myths grow larger and prejudices are reinforced; the
social-psychological baggage in such conflicts is often one of the major obstacles
for the termination of endless cycles of revenge and to bringing parties to the
negotiating table. The breakdown of Yugoslavia's multi-ethnic society illustrates
the strength that identity-based mobilization can have in relation to other
seemingly permanent, but more cross-cutting, loyalties.

Careful mapping and monitoring of identity groups could therefore prove to be

essential for finding more systematic ways by which to detect early warning
signals.
 Stages of conflict

The handling of conflict requires awareness of its various

developmental stages. If leaders in the situation can identify the
conflict issue and how far it has developed, they can sometimes solve
it before it becomes much more serious. Typical stages include:

• where potential for conflict exists - in other words where people

recognize that lack of resources, diversity of language or culture
may possible result in conflict if people are not sensitive to the
diversity.
• latent conflict where a competitive situation could easily spill
over into conflict - e.g. at a political rally or in the workplace
where there are obvious differences between groups of people.
• open conflict - which can be triggered by an incident and
suddenly become real conflict.
• aftermath conflict - the situation where a particular problem
may have been resolved but the potential for conflict still exists.
In fact the potential may be even greater than before, if one
person or group perceives itself as being involved in a win-loose
situation.

Signs of conflict between individuals

In the organization leaders and members should be alert to signs of

conflict between colleagues, so that they can be proactive in reducing
or resolving the conflict by getting to the root of the issue. Typical
signs may include:
 • colleagues not speaking to each other or ignoring each other
• contradicting and bad-mouthing one another
• deliberately undermining or not co-operating with each other, to
the downfall of the team

Signs of conflict between groups of people

Similarly, leaders and members can identify latent conflict between

groups of people in the organization or the community and plan
action before the conflict becomes open and destructive:

• cliques or factions meeting to discuss issues separately, when

they affect the whole organization
• one group being left out of organizing an event which should
include everybody
• groups using threatening slogans or symbols to show that their
group is right and the others are wrong

4. How to build teamwork and co-operation (…and so minimize the

possibility of conflict)

Teamwork and co-operation are essential in an organization which

aims to be effective and efficient, and not likely to be divided by
conflicting factions. The best teamwork usually comes from having a
shared vision or goal, so that leaders and members are all committed
to the same objectives and understand their roles in achieving those
objectives. Important behaviors in achieving teamwork and
minimizing potential conflict include a commitment by team
members to:

• share information by keeping people in the group up-to-date

with current issues
• express positive expectations about each other
• empower each other - publicly crediting colleagues who have
performed well and encouraging each other to achieve results
• team-build - by promoting good morale and protecting the
group's reputation with outsiders
 • resolve potential conflict - by bringing differences of opinion
into the open and facilitating resolution of conflicts

5. How to manage and resolve conflict situations

Collective bargaining

Especially in workplace situations, it is necessary to have agreed

mechanisms in place for groups of people who may be antagonistic
(e.g. management and workers) to collectively discuss and resolve
issues. This process is often called "collective bargaining", because
representatives of each group come together with a mandate to work
out a solution collectively. Experience has shown that this is far better
than avoidance or withdrawal, and puts democratic processes in place
to achieve "integrative problem solving", where people or groups who
must find ways of co-operating in the same organization, do so within
their own agreed rules and procedures.

Conciliation
The dictionary defines conciliation as "the act of procuring good will
or inducing a friendly feeling". South African labor relations
legislation provides for the process of conciliation in the workplace,
whereby groups who are in conflict and who have failed to reach
agreement, can come together once again to attempt to settle their
differences. This is usually attempted before the more serious step of
a strike by workers or a lock-out by management is taken; and it has
been found useful to involve a facilitator in the conciliation process.
Similarly, any other organization (e.g. sports club, youth group
orcommunity organization) could try conciliation as a first step.
 The Goals of Conflict
Whether the strife aims at a unilateral victory, at preserving a culture or
identity, or at keeping the exclusive control over a piece of territory, the goals of
the parties in a conflict are usually perceived as incompatible. Louis Kriesberg
describes how social and inter-personal conflicts always begin with the
emergence of contentious goals of two adversaries. The contentious goals vary in
the direction of change sought by the aggrieved party, as well as the magnitude.
Strategically, one can distinguish between two kinds of goals:

• Unilateral/First track goals: Parties who strive for total victory without
any considerations or compromise are said to pursue their unilateral, or
first track goal ("winner takes all").
• Multilateral/Second track goals: A second track goal usually refers to the
best outcome short of victory, normally obtained through compromise or
negotiations.

For negotiation or third party initiatives to be fruitful, both parties must be

willing to look beyond their unilateral goals and be open for a multilateral

compromise. It is common for parties to enter into preliminary negotiations

while still pursuing both their first and second track goals; should negotiations
fail or prove to be too costly, they can always fall back to their winner-take-all
attitude. Thus, to the two types of goals above, a slightly different variety could
be added, described here as divergent goals. This refers to a situation where a
party not only pursues two different goals at once, but when it deliberately
advocates different goals to two different audiences. During the early history of
the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yassir Arafat was often known to give
two different messages, a radical one to his Arabic audience and a more
moderate one to his English audience. This behavior gave a strong incentive for
Israel to reject any contacts or direct negotiations with the PLO for decades.

The greater the difference between the goals of the adversaries (the more radical
each side's demands are considered by the other side), the more destructive is
the violence that results from an escalation in tensions. Goals are seldom static;
as facts on the ground change and as each side experiences more sunk costs, the
demand for compensation for damages incurred may be added to the original
grievance. In addition, as groups feel an increased threat from their opponents,
socio-psychological processes such as cognitive dissonance, entrapment and
selective perceptions are easily reinforced. Mirror imaging, where parties
develop parallel images of the other, with self-perceptions as positive and
perceptions of "the other" as negative is common. While violence and
aggressiveness become associated with the other party, virtue and justice are
qualities possessed by one's own group. Thus, a party calling for peace or justice
is not necessarily pursuing a negotiated alternative, since such concepts are
almost always subjective.

The role of conflict management is to either change the parties' perception that
their goals are incompatible (to compatible or win-win perceptions), or to
change the goals themselves by making compromise preferable to continued
fighting. The negotiators' challenge is to facilitate the transformation of the
parties' goals from incompatible to compatible or even super-ordinate (i.e. when
a higher, mutual goal replaces the incompatibility).

Conflict Outcomes
There are several interrelated dimensions that can be mentioned in connection
with outcomes of conflict.

1. Military outcome: What is the final military outcome of a violent conflict?

Some studies suggest that there are only three possible ways in which a
conflict can actually end; either through the victory of one side, through
continued fighting, or through compromise. Others, such as
Galtung,suggest that there are different levels of peace that can define a
situation between two adversaries. Whereas "warm peace" refers to stable
and comfortable relations between two parties, "cold peace" simply
describes an absence of violent conflict.
2. Political outcome: We can also talk about outcome in terms of the results
of peace negotiations, mediation or political efforts in other forms. The
political outcome of a conflict includes the outcome of dialogue and
bargaining between adversaries as well as the intervention of third parties
in this process. One consideration is the specific material outcomes in
 terms of the division or distribution of stakes according to the
power/bargaining skills of each adversary. Also important is the degree to
which the adversaries are able to obtain their goals. Incompatible goals can
be "transcended" or surpassed, or they can be transformed over the course
of the negotiations, allowing for a redefinition of the goals and the creation
of new bargaining alternatives.
3. Durability of outcome: Another dimension is the degree to which an
outcome is the basis for a renewed severe conflict in the future, rather than
a resolution of it. Outcomes can be destructive or constructive, and give
rise to either a renewed conflict, or a mutually accepted solution.
Destructive outcomes tend to be imposed unilaterally, failing to address the
grievances that precipitated the conflict. Constructive outcomes are
compromises that address the root causes of a conflict, within a win-win
framework.
4. Fairness and Compensation: How an outcome will be reached depends on
the degree to which it is acceptable to both sides, and on its ability to reign
in "outliers" or potential spoilers into the process. All parties agree that
they would like a just and fair agreement, but what "just" and "fair" is
depends on whose perspective you take. In some cases where a conflict has
been marred by injustice it may be necessary to establish specific
standards for compensation or retribution through truth commissions or
tribunals.

Types of Conflict
Inter-communal conflicts can take many different forms depending on the
identity of the actors involved and on their primary goals and motivations.

For the purpose of our toolkit we separate inter-communal conflicts into

Regional Conflict, Centralist Conflict and Revolutionary Wars. Religious
conflicts are sometimes regionally or ethnically based, but are otherwise
classified as revolutionary. It is important to note that these are the "ideal"
types, and that real conflicts are often harder to categorize, as they often fall in
between these categories.

1. Regional: Struggles carried out between an identity group and the central
authority of the state in which the group resides. When rebel groups are
geographically and culturally separated from the ruling majority, their
 goal is often autonomy or secession. In other cases the conflict may be over
power and the control over resources.
2. Centralist: When the purpose of a conflict is to overthrow a regime, it is
said to be centralist. Where minority groups are geographically intermixed
throughout the territory of a state and where patterns of subjugation and
domination are present, communal groups sometimes seek the "ousting" of
a ruling elite in favor of leaders of their own kin. In contrast to the
revolutionary type, centralist conflicts focus less on redesigning society and
more on political office.
3. Revolutionary Wars: Can be distinguished from identity-based centralist
conflicts in that the aim is a complete change in the way a society operates.
The rebels wish to overthrow the present system and replace it with one
that is more just, pious, or righteous, such as a fully Communist system or
an Islamic society. The distinction between this category and the former
can be very fine, especially in cases where religious identity conforms to
ethnic boundaries. Religious conflicts are sometimes regionally or
ethnically based, but are otherwise classified as revolutionary.

This classification is based on the aim of the combatants rather than the
character of the conflict. Conflict can thus be identity-related but centralist or
regionalist in character or they can have strong religious or ideological
overtones without having any "revolutionary" aims. The basis for mobilizing a
group in such cases is different from the goals of the combatants.

In looking at the breakdown of states, K.J. Holsti in The State, War, and the State
of War identifies two different kinds of social and political fractures within a
state: vertical and horizontal. Whereas vertical fractures refer to the loss of
legitimacy of the government and the ruling class, horizontal fractures refer to
the fragmentation of the political community into separate groups with different
opportunities to political participation and access to resources.
 Common causes of conflict
Causes or sources of organizational conflict can be many and varied.
The most common causes are the following:

• scarcity of resources (finance, equipment, facilities, etc)

• different attitudes, values or perceptions
• disagreements about needs, goals, priorities and interests
• poor communication
• poor or inadequate organizational structure
• lack of teamwork
• lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities

Conflict between individual

People have differing styles of communication, ambitions, political or

religious views and different cultural backgrounds. In our diverse
society, the possibility of these differences leading to conflict between
individuals is always there, and we must be alert to preventing and
resolving situations where conflict arises.

Conflict between groups of people

Whenever people form groups, they tend to emphasize the things that
make their group "better than" or "different from" other groups.
This happens in the fields of sport, culture, religion and the
workplace and can sometimes change from healthy competition to
destructive conflict.

Conflict within a group of people

Even within one organization or team, conflict can arise from the
individual differences or ambitions mentioned earlier; or from rivalry
between sub-groups or factions. All leaders and members of the
 organization need to be alert to group dynamics that can spill over
into conflict.

3. How to identify signs and stages of conflict

"Disputes of right" and "disputes of interest"

Especially in the workplace, two main types of disputes have been

noted (although these two types may also happen in other situations).
These are:

• "disputes of right", where people or groups are entitled by law,

by contract, by previous agreement or by established practice to
certain rights. Disputes of right will focus on conflict issues such
as employment contracts, legally enforceable matters or
unilateral changes in accepted or customary practices. A dispute
of rights is, therefore, usually settled by legal decision or
arbitration and not by negotiation.
• "disputes of interest", where the conflict may be a matter of
opinion, such as where a person or group is entitled to some
resources or privileges (such as access to property, better
working conditions, etc). Because there is no established law or
right, a dispute of interest will usually be solved through
collective bargaining or negotiation.

Understanding Conflict and Conflict

Management
Definition
A team is a small group of people with
complementary skills who are committed to a
common purpose, performance goals, and approach
for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.
Although student teams may not satisfy all the
requirements of the definition, the degree to which
they do often determines their effectiveness.

Rationale
"Students do not come to school with all the social
skills they need to collaborate effectively with others.
Therefore, teachers need to teach the appropriate
communication, leadership, trust, decision making,
and conflict management skills to students and
provide the motivation to use these skills in order for
groups to function effectively."2 Faculty must take
responsibility to help students develop their skills to
participate on and lead teams. Students bring
different ideas, goals, values, beliefs and needs to
their teams and these differences are a primary
strength of teams. These same differences inevitably
lead to conflict, even if the level of conflict is low.
Since conflict is inevitable, one of the ways in which
faculty members can help students improve their
abilities to function on multidisciplinary teams is to
work with them to develop their understanding of
conflict and their capabilities to manage and resolve
conflict. To this end, this document addresses the
following questions:
1• What is conflict and conflict management?
2• Why learn more about conflict and conflict
management?
3• How do people respond to conflict?
4• What factors can affect our conflict modes?

What is conflict and conflict management?

Conflict may be defined as a struggle or contest
between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs,
values, or goals. Conflict on teams is inevitable;
however, the results of conflict are not
predetermined. Conflict might escalate and lead to
nonproductive results, or conflict can be beneficially
resolved and lead to quality final products.
Therefore, learning to manage conflict is integral to a
high-performance team. Although very few people go
looking for conflict, more often than not, conflict
results because of miscommunication between people
with regard to their needs, ideas, beliefs, goals, or
values. Conflict management is the principle that all
conflicts cannot necessarily be resolved, but learning
how to manage conflicts can decrease the odds of
nonproductive escalation. Conflict management
involves acquiring skills related to conflict resolution,
self-awareness about conflict modes, conflict
communication skills, and establishing a structure
for management of conflict in your environment.

Why learn more about conflict and conflict

management?
Listening, oral communication, interpersonal
communication, and teamwork rank near the top of
skills that employers seek in their new hires. When
you learn to effectively manage and resolve conflicts
with others, then more opportunities for successful
team memberships are available to you.
If we can learn to manage this highly probable event
called conflict (we average five conflicts per day),
then we are less apt to practice destructive behaviors
that will negatively impact our team. Although
conflict may be misunderstood and unappreciated,
research shows that unresolved conflict can lead to
aggression. Most of us use conflict skills that we
observed growing up, unless we have made a
conscious effort to change our conflict management
style. Some of us observed good conflict management,
while others observed faulty conflict management.
Most of us have several reasons to improve our
conflict-management skills.
Faculty members should help students develop their
conflict management skills. Most people do not
resolve conflicts because they either have a faulty
skill set and/or because they do not know the
organization’s policy on conflict management. All
team members need to know their conflict styles,
conflict intervention methods, and strategies for
conflict skill improvement.

How do people respond to conflict? Fight or

flight?
Physiologically we respond to conflict in one of two
ways—we want to “get away from the conflict” or we
are ready to “take on anyone who comes our way.”
Think for a moment about when you are in conflict.
Do you want to leave or do you want to fight when a
conflict presents itself? Neither physiological
response is good or bad—it’s personal response.
What is important to learn, regardless of our initial
physiological response to conflict, is that we should
intentionally choose our response to conflict.
Whether we feel like we want to fight or flee when a
conflict arises, we can deliberately choose a conflict
mode. By consciously choosing a conflict mode
instead of to conflict, we are more likely to
productively contribute to solving the problem at
hand. Below are five conflict response modes that can
be used in conflict.

What factors can affect our conflict modes?

Some factors that can impact how we respond to
conflict are listed below with explanations of how
these factors might affect us.
1• Gender:-some of us were socialized to use
particular conflict modes because of our gender. For
example, some males, because they are male, were
taught “always stand up to someone, and, if you have
to fight, then fight.” If one was socialized this way he
2
3
4Will be more likely to use assertive conflict modes

versus using cooperative modes.

5• Self-concept:-how we think and feel about

ourselves affect how we approach conflict. Do we

think our thoughts, feelings, and opinions are worth
being heard by the person with whom we are in
conflict?
6• Expectations:-Do we believe the other person or

our team wants to resolve the conflict?

7• Situation:-Where is the conflict occurring, do we

know the person we are in conflict with, and is the

conflict personal or professional?
8• Position (Power):-What is our power status
relationship, (that is, equal, more, or less) with the
person with whom we are in conflict?
9• Practice:-involves being able to use all five conflict
modes effectively, being able to determine what
conflict mode would be most effective to resolve the
conflict, and the ability to change modes as necessary
while engaged in conflict.
10• Determining the best mode:-Through
knowledge about conflict and through practice we
develop a “conflict management understanding” and
can, with ease and limited energy, determine what
conflict mode to use with the particular person with
whom we are in conflict.
11• Communication skills:-The essence of conflict
resolution and conflict management is the ability to
communicate effectively. People who have and use
effective communication will resolve their conflicts
with greater ease and success.
12• Life experiences:-As mentioned earlier, we
often practice the conflict modes we saw our primary
caretaker(s) use unless we have made a conscious
choice as adults to change or adapt our conflict styles.
Some of us had great role models teach us to manage
our conflicts and others of us had less-than-great role
models. Our life experiences, both personal and
professional, have taught us to frame conflict as
either something positive that can be worked through
or something negative to be avoided and ignored at
all costs.

Conflict Management Strategies

There is a menu of strategies we can choose from

when in conflict situations:

• Forcing - using formal authority or other power

that you possess to satisfy your concerns without
regard to the concerns of the party that you are in
conflict with.
 • Accommodating - allowing the other party to
satisfy their concerns while neglecting your own.
• Avoiding - not paying attention to the conflict and
not taking any action to resolve it.
• Compromising - attempting to resolve a conflict
by identifying a solution that is partially
satisfactory to both parties, but completely
satisfactory to neither.
• Collaborating - cooperating with the other party
to understand their concerns and expressing your
own concerns in an effort to find a mutually and
completely satisfactory solution (win-win).
Research on conflict management styles has
found that each of us tends to use one or two of the
above five strategies more than the others. For
instance, some people predominantly use
collaborating when in interpersonal conflict
situations. In other words, although there are five
different ways to handle conflicts, such a person is
more likely to collaborate than they are to force,
accommodate, avoid, or compromise. There are
many advantages to using a collaborating strategy to
handle interpersonal conflict situations.
Collaborating with the other party promotes creative
problem solving, and it's a way of fostering mutual
respect and rapport. However, collaborating takes
time, and many conflict situations are either very
urgent or too trivial to justify the time it takes to
collaborate. There are many conflict situations that
should be handled with one of the other four conflict
management strategies rather than collaboration.
Managers who are very skilled at conflict
management are able to (a) understand interpersonal
conflict situations and (b) use the appropriate conflict
management strategy for each situation.

Matching Strategies to Situations

There are a few key variables that define conflict

management situations and determine which conflict
management strategies are likely to be effective.
Time pressure is an important variable--if there were
never any time pressures, collaboration might always
be the best approach to use. In addition to time
pressures, some of the most important factors to
consider are issue importance, relationship
importance, and relative power:
• Issue importance - the extent to which important
priorities, principles or values are involved in the
conflict.
• Relationship importance - how important it is that
you maintain a close, mutually supportive
relationship with the other party.
• Relative power - how much power you have
compared to how much power other party has.
When you find yourself in conflict over very
important issues, you should normally try to
collaborate with the other party. But, if time is
precious and if you have enough power to impose
your will, forcing is more appropriate. Realize that
you might need to repair the relationship after using
a forcing strategy if the other party feels that you did
not show adequate consideration for their concerns.
Again, collaborating is normally the best strategy for
handling conflicts over important issues.
 When dealing with moderately important issues,
compromising can often lead to quick solutions.
However, compromise does not completely satisfy
either party, and compromise does not foster
innovation the way that taking the time to
collaborate can. So, collaborating is a better
approach to dealing with very important issues.
When you find yourself in conflict over a fairly
unimportant issue, using an accommodating strategy
is a quick way to resolve the conflict without
straining your relationship with the other party.
Collaborating is also an option, but it might not be
worth the time.
Avoiding should normally be reserved for
situations where there is a clear advantage to waiting
to resolve the conflict. Too often, interpersonal
conflicts persist and even worsen if there is no
attempt to resolve them. Avoiding is appropriate if
you are too busy with more important concerns and
if your relationship with the other party is
unimportant. However, if either the issue or the
relationship between the parties is important, then
avoidance is a poor strategy
What do organizations use conflict
management for?
For any organization to be effective and
efficient in achieving its goals, the people in
the organization need to have a shared vision
of what they are striving to achieve, as well as
clear objectives for each team / department
and individual. You also need ways of
recognizing and resolving conflict amongst
people, so that conflict does not become so
serious that co-operation is impossible. All
members of any organization need to have
ways of keeping conflict to a minimum - and
of solving problems caused by conflict, before
conflict becomes a major obstacle to your
work. This could happen to any organization,
whether it is an NGO, a CBO, a political
party, a business or a government.

Conflict management is the process of

planning to avoid conflict where possible and
 organizing to resolve conflict where it does
happen, as rapidly and smoothly as possible.

Diplomacy as Conflict Management

Conflict management activities carried out by foreign
government representatives are usually referred to as
diplomacy. Since the time of Machiavelli, diplomats
have become known as the official link of
communication between states and in the past
diplomacy was often the forum where the decisions
on war and peace were ultimately taken. In their
capacity as foreign emissaries, diplomats today in
embassies around the world handle everything from
cultural relations to trade and politics. The use of the
term diplomacy can therefore be both vague and
misleading, especially if one is referring only to
official political relations between states in matters of
war and peace. Because of this confusion the
literature has come to distinguish between track I &
Track II diplomacy, where Track I represents the
official relations between states conducted by elite
representatives, and track II refers to unofficial
communications between lower level officials,
academics or intellectuals, whose communications
can potentially lead to higher-level communications
in the future (a good example is the Oslo Process
between Israel and the Palestinians).

First Track, First Tier, or Track I Diplomacy, as it

can be called, is therefore the interaction between
official state actors or elites that represent each party
to a conflict. It also often involves diplomats or
officials of other states - partisan or non-partisan - in
the capacity of facilitators or mediators. However,
Track I diplomacy refers not only to the actors
themselves but also to the processes used in conflict
management. Usually Track I diplomacy is overt,
using open channels and with full knowledge of all
parties involved, including their consent and
authorization. In order for Track I diplomacy to be
worthwhile, diplomats have to have the capacity to
offer credible and non-retractable commitments and
concessions. It is therefore expected that Track I
diplomats either have full decision-making capability
or stand in close contact with those individuals at the
center of power whose consent is needed for any
agreement to be accepted.
Track I diplomacy has been used to determine rules
for warfare and conditions of defeat. Yet, in the past
fifty years, the face of diplomacy has changed. More
international contact and the development of
relations with states also means more ministries,
agencies, and other organizations working under the
auspices of official authority. This can be seen in
regional organizations becoming increasingly
involved in international affairs and with them new
types of Track I diplomacy. More agencies and
organizations are able to participate in international
relations yet at the same time, with the loss of
concentration in representation, there is more
availability for representatives to be present in all
stages of conflict

Second Track, Second tier, or Track II diplomacy is

the interaction between lower-level actors in a
conflict. As with Track I diplomacy, this refers not
only to the actors themselves but also to the methods
used during Peacemaking. Track II diplomacy
provides supplemental and parallel functions to help
foster relations at various levels in support of Track I
efforts. Often times it seeks to carry out the mandates
of Track I diplomacy but through more covert and
subtle means, through secret channels or lower-level
official talks. The means and efforts of the Track II
diplomat extend beyond Peacemaking into the
Conflict Prevention and Peace building stages of
conflict.

In recent years, a new level of diplomacy has

emerged. Track One-and-a-half Diplomacy refers to
situations when official representatives give authority
to non-state actors to participate, negotiate and act
on behalf of the state actors. Track one-and-a-half
diplomacy occurred when St. Egidio, an Italian
Catholic NGO, mediated talks between the two
warring parties in Mozambique. The NGO was given
authority by each party to negotiate on their behalf
and successfully mediated a peace agreement.
Empowering Local actors
External actors can do a good job of managing a
conflict through peacekeeping or peace enforcement,
but there is unlikely to be true conflict resolution and
transformation without the involvement and
commitment of local actors. Communication
therefore needs to go in three directions during a
peace process: internally-externally between leaders
of the local parties and foreign sponsors or
guarantors; vertically, between the leaderships of the
antagonistic parties; and horizontally, between the
top leadership and the lower echelons of both
societies. A peace process implemented by a foreign
sponsor that lacks the vertical and horizontal
elements is unlikely to properly address the real
grievances of the parties involved and may therefore
fail to take root in local society. On the other hand,
former enemies are often unable to produce enough
trust and reconciliation on their own to be capable of
implementing a peace process without the help of
outsiders to guarantee their security. . Local
leadership thus has to be empowered on each level of
diplomacy in order for agreements to not be imposed
from the top-down. Each leadership group has
different tasks and responsibilities:

The elite: The top leadership mainly focuses on

high-level negotiations over cease-fires or peace
agreements. Members of the elite either have the
ability to make policy related changes, or are in
close contact with those leaders who have such
decision-making capacity. In order for a peace
process to "fly" with those groups who have
suffered and fought in a conflict, elites have to
make sure that their constituents’ most important
grievances are addressed through the negotiations
and that change - although slow - is visible on the
ground.
The Middle Range leadership: They focus on
such issues as the coordination of training in
conflict resolution, the implementation of peace
commissions, as well as problem-solving
workshops. The Middle Range leadership can
often serve as a back channel to top-level
negotiators by engaging themselves in
Explorative, or Track II diplomacy. Because
intellectuals and academics lack the public
pressure exerted on the political leadership, they
are often free to be more creative in searching for
new options or alternatives. Because their
decisions were not binding, the small group of
Arab and Israeli intellectuals who lay the
groundwork for the Oslo agreement were able to
be much more flexible than those officials who
 were negotiating in the parallel Washington
process. When higher-level government officials
became involved, much of the facts had already
been laid out on the table and previously
unthinkable options had been explored.
Grassroots: These leaders often have to carry
the heaviest load of all the three groups, in that
they are faced with the largest target group, but
with the least resources and capabilities in terms
of political decision-making. Tasks include
grassroots training, prejudice reduction, and
socio-psychological work in reducing post-conflict
trauma of the many victims of violence. In short,
the grassroots activists are imperative for creating
local peace and reconciliation between groups,
but are often unable to do so without top-down or
foreign/external assistance.
For societies with little prior experience with
representative government, the peace process itself
can be a good starting point for practicing increased
citizen participation required for future State
building. Local actors can often carry out much of
the administrative activities of foreign sponsors and
donors ,while requiring less of the training. They are
valuable for providing local access to target groups
and for identifying real needs and grievances both in
preventive conflict situations and in the stages of
post-conflict reconstruction. Local actors on all level
also have a growing role during Evaluation and
assessment of conflict management activities, where
money spent on the right causes may be critical for
the success or failure of a peace agreement.

There are thus important choices facing the external

parties when investing in a peace process, so as to
follow the principle of "doing no harm". Grassroots
are easily swayed by demagogic or religious leaders
who often use the manipulation of public sentiments
as a means in their struggle for power and
popularity. As economic and social conditions in a
society worsen, be it because of the ongoing conflict
or because of internal political mismanagement, it is
always very practical to put the blame on the enemy
group. External parties have to be careful not
empower the "wrong" local elites in such a struggle.
Looking back at the breakdown of federal
Yugoslavia, many analysts put the blame entirely on
Milosevic and the Serbian civilian/military elites who
used "ethnic rallying" to bolster their own power.
Susan Woodward claims that had the international
community taken early and decisive steps to support
the federal government of Prime Minister Markovic
economically and politically, the catastrophe that
followed may have been averted.

However, outside parties and sponsors also have to

make sure not to leave out important players from
the process if these players are vital for the
implementation of an agreement. Outliers or
extremist groups who are barred from negotiations
or who opt out because their demands are not met by
an agreement, often feel that they have nothing to
loose from spoiling the process through extremist acts
or terrorism. In some cases the most extreme groups
from either side of a conflict end up in an "unholy
alliance" that opposes a peace process, thus in a way
projecting their own expectations of non-compliance
on to the enemy.
 Case Studies
Introduction
This section is meant to complement the approaches
section by providing short overviews of selected
conflicts. Cases are organized geographically into
four regions: Africa, Asia, Latin America, and
Europe. Each case gives a short background to the
conflict as well as presents the main actors and their
positions. The focus is conceptual rather than
chronological. Each case study is identified and
studied through the lenses of conflict prevention
measures, peacemaking efforts, peace building
projects and peacekeeping missions. This method of
analysis allows for comparison while preserving the
uniqueness of each case.
Asia

Afghanistan
Nature of the Conflict and Solution
Afghanistan is an example of a failed state. The
fragmentation of state and society into warring
parties has been described as the result of "the
failure of revolution from above". The attempt to
impose a model of state and society that was inspired
and funded by ideologically radicalized elites
alienated the loyalty of a tribal and divided society.
The clash between state and society, in its ethnic and
tribal components, was exacerbated by intrusive
external interventions. The model can be applied
both to the Communist regime of Najibullah and to
the Taliban regime. The role of external forces was
fundamental in both cases. Military and economic
support from abroad fueled the conflict and
influenced the behavior of the parties. Substantial
backing from external players encouraged
uncompromising and extremist attitudes in the party
in power, and on the other hand, allowed the
opposition to organize a violent and protracted
resistance.

The solution to the conflict could lie in the change

from an authoritarian regime imposed from abroad
to an autonomous central government as guarantor
of the independence of Afghanistan and the respect of
regional and ideological differences.

The cooperation of the neighboring states and of the

other third parties that have been involved in the
conflict is fundamental. For the solution to be viable,
an international effort is required to transform
Afghanistan entrenched war economy into a peace
economy.

History and actors

The Afghan conflict of the second half of the 90’s was
a continuation of the previous civil war, which started
at the end of the Soviet occupation. Basically
Afghanistan has been in an interrupted state of war
since 1979. The different mujahedin factions that had
resisted the communist regime since1978 started in
1992 a civil war among themselves to gain control of
power in Kabul. After 1994 the increasing power and
military advance of the Taliban pushed the
mujahedin factions back together into the Northern
Alliance.

• The Taliban (Islamic Student) is a political

movement emerged in 1994, led by Islamic
seminary students and teachers. Many were
trained in Pakistan, in religious schools
(madrasa’s) financed by Saudi foundations,
inspired by the Wahhabi puritan interpretation of
Islam. These students came together to form the
Taliban with the goal of sweeping away the
"corrupted" warring factions and create a new,
pure Islamic state. The Pakistani Interior
Ministry and the secret services (ISI) played a
fundamental role in training and equipping the
Taliban as a militia.
The movement attracted the support of the
Pashtun tribes of central Afghanistan who
resented the mismanagement of power and the
violence of the mujahedin factions, mainly
 belonging to other ethnic minorities concentrated
in the north of the country.
• The Northern Alliance was left with less than
20% of the territory, in the North-east of
Afghanistan. It is formed by the mujahedin
factions that fought the communist regime until
1992 and then each other in the civil war between
1992 and 1994. There are four major factions.
Three of these are mujahedin groups; the fourth is
led by General Dostam a former supporter of the
communist regime.
o Jamiat is the major and the most moderate of

the mujahedin factions. It draws its support

from the Tajiks in the North, and also Hazaras
and Persian-speaking Pashtuns (mainly urban
Pashtuns).
o Hizb-i-Islam is a more fundamentalist faction.

Once led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was

strongly supported by Pakistan’s ISI and
received the bulk of CIA and Saudi assistance
until in ’94, frustrated by the lack of success,
the ISI switched its support to the Taliban
o The third, smaller, mujahedin group is the

Hizb-i-Wahdat-i-Islam. This faction is made up

of Shia’s Muslims (less than 15% of the
 population), and draws its support from the
Hazara ethnic minority.
o The fourth faction of the Alliance (Junbeshi
Milli) is led by Dostum. A former General
close to the communist government, he joined
forces in 1992 with Massoud’s Jamiat to take
Kabul and establish Rabbani’s government.
An Uzbek, he receives strong support within
his ethnic group.

The Taliban and the Northern Alliance have been

competing for the control of the country in a
prolonged and violent conflict fueled by different and
overlapping cleavages: ethnic and regional
differences (Pashtuns against Tajikis, Uzbeks and
Hazaris; south against north); religious
discrimination (Sunni Muslim against Shia Muslim;
fundamentalists against moderates and
traditionalists); economic interests (control of the
opium production, of smuggling activities and of the
pipelines to be built between Central Asia and the
Ocean).

Many third states are involved in the conflict,

supporting one side or the other. Both Parties have
received from these states financial and military aid.

Pakistan supported the mujahedin factions during

the Soviet invasion, funneling the financial and
military support given by the US and Saudi Arabia
especially toward Hekmatyar’s group until, in 1992,
it assisted the creation of the Taliban. The United
States reduced their presence in the region after the
Soviets withdrew their last troops in 1989.
Nevertheless, they kept backing the policies of their
Pakistani ally. The rise to power of the Taliban was
viewed in Washington as a positive development,
creating the conditions to foster American and
Pakistani interests and contain Iran’s ambitions.
Only in 1997 Washington’s attitude started to change
until it switched dramatically after September 11
terrorist attack, leading to a massive direct
involvement in the conflict and a difficult swing in
the position of Pakistan.

Iran has been funding the Shia’s Muslims of

Afghanistan, trying to protect the Persian-speaking
minority and fighting a proxy war with Pakistan,
where Shia’s Muslims are discriminated. The rise of
the Taliban interrupted the process of repatriation of
over 2 million of refugees that Iran hosted during the
Soviet invasion (at least as many are also in
Pakistan). Violent fundamentalism and drug
trafficking are two major causes of instability in the
whole region interesting Iran, the Central Asia
Republics, Russia, China and India.

Afghanistan has become the largest exporter of

opium, poppy crops doubled between 1998 and ´99
reaching a total of 75% of the world production.
Together with the problems related with the traffic of
drugs, Afghanistan exports to the region a huge flow
of smuggled consumer goods that constitute
overwhelming competition for the local economies
and a source of huge fiscal losses for the
governments.

Attempts at Conflict Management

Pre-Conflict Initiatives
It is difficult to indicate any example of pre-conflict
intervention in a conflict that lasted without
interruption for over 20 years. There have been
nevertheless moments of evolution of the fight,
changes of position of the actors and de-escalations,
eventually followed by a new escalation and new
violence. These moments could have been used to
prevent further exacerbation of the war; they are
instead as many examples of opportunities missed.

After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, the USSR

and the US backed a United Nation transition
mechanism that was supposed to lead and monitor
the shift from the communist regime to a newly
elected democratic government. The Transition
Mechanism included an agreement for the
interruption of the financial and military supplies
from outside parties; a cease-fire agreement; the
organization of elections and the formation of a
broad-based government. The implementation of the
plan was interrupted by the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The US also withdrew from the region leaving
a political vacuum that was filled by the conflicting
interests of the regional powers. The disappearance
of hegemonic control over the transition plan allowed
the fragmentation of the different Afghan parties.
The condition of anarchy created a number of
security-dilemmas and ignited the power-struggle.

In 1992 the mujahedin overthrew the communist

government and took Kabul. The Peshawar
agreement, officially sanctioned by Islamabad, led to
the formation of the Rabbani government but was
immediately spoiled by the backing given by the
Pakistani secret services to Hekmatyar. His attack
against the new government started the civil war
between the different Afghan factions.

Peace Making
The first civil war and the Soviet occupation were
resolved under the auspices of the UN with the
Geneva agreements of 1988, signed by Afghanistan,
the URSS, the USA and Pakistan. Different attempts
at peacemaking have tried to stop the fighting
between the mujahedin factions. Major obstacles to
the peace process have been the interferences of
external actors: they seem to be the main spoilers of
negotiations that are doomed to fail if they do not
include both Pakistan and Iran; moreover external
interventions in the form of financial and military
support avoid the creation of a hurting stalemate
which could push the parties to find a compromise.

After 1992 one of the main mistakes in the

peacemaking efforts sponsored by the UN was the
inclusion in the negotiations of an excessive number
of local parties. The desire to create a broad-based
agreement exacerbated fragmentation, legitimizing a
large number of factions with no real popular
support.

In 1996 the mediation of Iran led to an agreement

between the mujahedin factions involved in the civil
war. The existence of a stalemate in the fight
facilitated the negotiation; nevertheless not all the
important players were invited. The Taliban and
Pakistan were left out, but by then the Taliban was
already too strong of an actor to be excluded and the
Teheran agreement failed.

International Organizations and NGOs have played

an important role in trying to keep alive the quasi-
non-existent process of negotiation between the
parties, with great effort but poor results.

The UN assumed more recently a position of

confrontation with the Taliban regime that hindered
its own efforts of mediation. Resolution 1267 in 1999
established an air embargo on Afghanistan and asked
States to freeze funds belonging to the Taliban and to
Bin Laden. Resolution 1333, in December 2000,
insisted on the previous measures condemning the
Taliban’s violations of human rights, support to
terrorist organizations and illegal drugs activities.
The new measures became effective on January 19
2001 causing as a reaction the failure of the accord on
peace negotiations that had been reached by the UN
Special Envoy Francisc Vendrell.

A more conciliatory role was played by the

Organization of the Islamic Conference, which tried
to keep a neutral position to mediate between the
parties. A delegation of the OIC kept talking with
neighboring countries and with both the parties.

Given that even just starting a negotiation process

between the two parties proved to be extremely
complicated, both the OIC and the UN changed their
strategy trying to influence instead important
outsiders such as Iran and Pakistan.
Since the US policy toward Afghanistan and the
Taliban changed in 1997, Washington has been
calling for the creation of "an Afghan government
that is multi-ethnic, broad-based, and that observes
international norms of behavior". The US showed
support for the return to Kabul of the exiled King
Zahir Shah. In March 1999 King Zahir called the
convening of a "Loya Jirga", a great assembly
traditionally used to form a consensus in Afghan
society: the first step toward the formation of a
government of national unity. The Parties
nevertheless did not respond in a positive way. The
existing stalemate seemed to be for both Parties the
best situation short of victory over the other side.
None of them had sufficient strength to overrule the
other; moreover none of them could extract loyalty
from the whole country even if it were able to
conquer it militarily. The stalemate was not painful
enough to push the parties to negotiate, and this was
so thanks to external financial support, drug trade,
and even international humanitarian aid. As far as
the conflict continued, even in a condition of
stalemate, both parties would continue to rule on
their respective areas of influence, receive financial
and military support from outside and benefit from
drug traffic and smuggling.
The new pressure exerted by the US after September
11 created the conditions for a redistribution of
positions inside Afghanistan and a Mutual Enticing
Opportunity for both Iran and Pakistan. The
military intervention of the US eliminated the
Taliban. Pakistan and Iran have an opportunity to
improve their position in the region and their
relations with the US abandoning the policies of
interference in the conflict and cooperating in the
peace process. This was the opportunity to start a
negotiation process in which all the players are
included and spoiling interferences are kept out.

Under the auspices of the UN, the Bonn Agreement

was signed on December 5 2001, by 23
representatives of different Afghan factions, regional
and ethnic groups, and by the Special Representative
of the Secretary General, Lakhdar Brahimi.

Peace Keeping
A multinational force led by the United Kingdom has
been deployed with the mandate of assisting the
Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of
security in Kabul and its surrounding areas. The
operation has been authorized under UN Charter
Chapter VII, by the UN Security Council, with the
approval of the Afghan Interim Authority
(Resolution 1386/2001). The International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) was initially established for
6 months, with the purpose of guaranteeing security
in Kabul and of assisting the Afghan Interim
Authority in the establishment and training of new
Afghan security and armed forces. The Security
Council Resolution 1386 recognizes that "the
responsibility for providing security and law and
order throughout the country resides with the Afghan
themselves". The initial composition of ISAf was of
5000 troops, authorized by the Security Council to
"take all necessary measures to fulfill [their]
mandate" and with "complete and unimpeded
freedom of movement throughout the territory and
airspace of Afghanistan", as defined in the military-
technical agreement between the ISAF command and
the Interim government of Afghanistan.

All the expenses of ISAF are borne by the

participating Member States.

The Interim Authority and the UN Representative

insist for the extension of the mandate and the
expansion of the international force in order to
deploy it in other major Afghan cities. The presence
of peacekeeping forces would also be important for
the protection of the principal ways of transport and
communication, to guarantee the delivery of
humanitarian aid, and facilitate the social, economic
and political integration of the country.

Peace Building
The first step of a necessary long process of Peace
building was the coordination of countries and
institutions responsible for the raising of funds and
the planning of the reconstruction program. The
Afghanistan Reconstruction Steering Group is Co-
Chaired by the European Union, the US, Japan and
Saudi Arabia. The planning of the reconstruction
program is done by a joint team of experts from the
World Bank, the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), and the Asian Development Bank
(ADB).

The principles to guide the reconstruction are: the

transformation of the war economy into a peace
economy; the reinforcement of the central
government in an integrated country; the
involvement of neighboring states into a
comprehensive process of regional development.
Twenty years of war created a criminal economy,
organized along lines of tribal and regional socio-
political networks that antagonize the authority of
the central government. Reconstruction should offer
to the population alternative sources of livelihood, as
it should offer the state reliable financial sources to
rebuild the ties of reciprocity and accountability
between state and society. The distribution of
humanitarian aid and the organization of the
reconstruction effort should reinforce the role of the
central government, avoiding discrimination of
regions and social groups and bewaring of
manipulation by local warlords. Important
preconditions to the peaceful development of the
country are the disarmament of the factions and the
clearance of the enormous amount of land mines that
cause an average of 150-300 casualties per month.
 CONCLUSION

There is no single solution to conflicts. Each one

of them is unique and has to be handled differently.
But there are some general rules or approaches to a
conflict. There are nine approaches a manager can
take in a conflict situation. The attached table shows
the different approaches that can be adopted. Based
on the situation and the conflict a manager may need
to adopt one of these approaches or try multiple of
these approaches.
 DOMINATE BARGAIN COLLABERATE
“Do it my “Let’s make a “Let’s work
way” deal” together”
You direct, You trade, You problem
control or take turns or solve together
I
N resist split the to reach a win-
T difference win resolution
E SMOOTH COEXIST RELEASE
R
A “Try it. You “Let’s agree “It’s yours to
C will like it” to disagree” do”
T You You pursue You release
I
O accentuate difference control within
N similarities independently agreed-upon
and downplay limits
differences
MAINTAIN DECIDE BY YEILD
“Wait” RULE “I’ll go along”
You postpone “Let’s be fair” You adopt,
confronting Objective accommodate,
differences rules give in, or agree
determine
how
differences
will be
handled
Firm Flexible

VIEWPOINT

T
 Methodology

As far as methodology is concerned methodology can

be decided as number of method and ways of
collecting, grouping and arranging the request data
or information from different resources related to the
subsequent topic in order to represents data in a
significant manner

Therefore for the completion of the project I have

used various methods, mostly the data have been
used, but most of the topic have been covered in
writing which are been taken from the various books
and websites.

Hence the information collected is in secondary data

but I have done more work on the bases of case study
and some data is in the form of primary data too.
 BIBLOGRAPHY
As far as bibliography is concerned is the term used
for knowing about the various numerous sources
from which a data or project have been collected.

As far as project is concerned I have also taken the

data from the various sources. I have taken my data
from the primary as well as the secondary data.

Primary data: It was a hand job to meet with the on

site official and gather facts.

Secondary data: The secondary data was obtained

from various journals, net, magazines etc

Challenges faced while making the project:

The main difficulty that I personally faced in making

this report was that the data was very vast. But still I
managed to get relevant information out of the raw
data.
BOOKS: conflict management- by Algert N.E
WEBSITES: www.google.co.in
www.search.yahoo.com
www.searchbooks.com