1.

Conflict

Differences Between Consensus & Conflict Models

by Louise Balle, Demand Media
When discussing consensus and conflict models pertaining to business, human resource professionals are referring to methods of resolving issues in the workplace. These issues often involve employee relations with each other and the boss, but also may include interactions with customers. These two different types of approaches may also apply to the decision-making process of a business owner.

Persuasion Versus Force

Consensus is generally the least "violent" or confrontational approach to resolving issues or making decisions. The facilitator (in the case of a small business, this is usually the owner) seeks to persuade each key person involved. A conflict model may involve a more "violent" or confrontational approach (violent in the sense it may result in direct or indirect disagreements on the part of those involved, according to "On Conflict and Consensus" by C.T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein). One example of a conflict approach is taking a vote and letting the majority rule. The majority is overpowering the minority and may leave some feeling powerless.

Shared Versus Concentrated Power

A consensus approach commonly involves more than one person--a group that works together to come to a resolution and values the opinions of others in the process. An example is a committee of people who meet regularly to make determinations on important matters. A conflict approach may involve one person playing the role of dictator in the situation, which could lead to direct or indirect disagreements. For instance, if a boss continually makes decisions employees consider unfair without giving a reason behind those decisions, this could drive down employee morale and fuel conflicts among the ranks. The conflict approach rarely takes the opinions or feelings of others into account but is a decisive way to resolve issues.
THE FOUR PILLARS OF EDUCATION

The Four Pillars of Education form the basis for the UNESCO-report Learning: The Treasure Within. They cannot be defined separately; they form an integrated whole, complementing and strengthening each other. Education is, after all, a total experience.
LEARNING TO KNOW

Learning to know lays the foundations of learning throughout life. This pillar refers to the basic knowledge that we need to be able to understand our environment and to live in dignity. It is also about arousing curiosity, allowing us to experience the pleasures of research and discovery. It faces us with the challenge of combining a sufficiently broad education with the in-depth investigation of selected subjects. Naturally, learning to know presupposes that we develop the powers of concentration, memory, and thought. In short, that we learn to learn.
LEARNING TO DO

Learning to do. Learning to do refers to the acquisition of practical skills, but also to an aptitude for teamwork and initiative, and a readiness to take risks. As such, this pillar is about the competence of putting what we have learned into practice so as to act creatively on our environment. A variety of situations, often unforeseeable, is bound to arise. When this happens, learning to do enables us to turn our knowledge into effective innovations.
LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER

Learning to live together is the pillar UNESCO emphasizes more than any other. It refers first of all to developing an understanding of others through dialogueleading to empathy, respect, and appreciation. Yet if we are to understand others, we must first know ourselves. Learning to live together is thus also about recognizing our growing interdependence, about experiencing shared purposes, and about implementing common projects and a joint future. Only then will it be possible to manage inevitable conflicts in a peaceful way.
LEARNING TO BE

Learning to be is founded on the fundamental principle that education needs to contribute to the all-round development of each individual. This pillar deals with the broadening of care for each aspect of the personality. It deals with giving us the freedom of thought, feeling, and imagination that we need to act more independently, with more insight, more critically, and more responsibly. The end of education is to discover and open the talents hidden like a treasure within every

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM The theory consists of three core principles: meaning, language and thought. These core principles lead to conclusions about the creation of a persons self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997). Meaning states that humans act toward people and things according to the meanings that give to those people or things. Symbolic Interactionism holds the principal of meaning to be the central aspect of human behavior.

Language gives humans a means by which to negotiate meaning through symbols. Humans identify meaning in speech acts with others. Thought modifies each individuals interpretation of symbols. Thought is a mental conversation that requires different points of view. Structural functionalism, or simply functionalism , is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to [1] promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole, and believes that society has [2] evolved like organisms. This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs,traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the "body" as a [3] whole. In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system". For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the methodological [4][5] development of social science, rather than a specific school of thought. The structural functionalism approach is a macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a [6] whole.