Abstract:

This article highlights the need to take peace and conflict resolution education seriously as a space
that requires ongoing action and reflection and in which people theorize and experiment with
approaches aimed at shifting conflict dynamics and addressing structural violence. The article
provides a brief overview of the key similarities and differences between the fields of peace
education and conflict resolution and highlights some of the pedagogical commitments that
undergird these fields. It is followed by an analysis of the forms of structural violence that
disproportionately impact African American youth in the United States, examining the intersecting
and multi-layered nature of the violence that African-American youth face in the U.S.The article then
pivots to consider how practitioners are engaging with these challenges ,analyzing youth
programming offered by the Connecticut Center for Nonviolence, a community-based organization
engaged in educational activities with youth of color who are impacted by various overlapping forms
of structural violence. This analysis draws on preliminary evaluation data and reports, as well as the
author's work with the Connecticut Center for Nonviolence over last seven years, in which I served
as a researcher, facilitator, and strategist.

Introduction:
Is there a correct way to handle conflict? What are the effects of poor conflict management? Conflict
in the workplace might be inevitable, as employees have different personalities, goals, and opinions.
Conflict management is one of the core trainings we offer for managers and supervisors. Learning
how to handle conflict efficiently is a necessary skill for anyone in management and the key to
preventing it from hindering employees' professional growth. Conflict resolution is only a five-step
process:
Body:

The Five Steps to Conflict Resolution

Step 1: Identify the source of the conflict. The more information you have about the cause of the
conflict, the more easily you can help to resolve it. To get the information you need, use a series of
questions to identify the cause, like, “When did you feel upset?” “Do you see a relationship between
that and this incident?” “How did this incident begin?”

As a manager or supervisor, you need to give both parties the chance to share their side of the
story. It will give you a better understanding of the situation, as well as demonstrate your impartiality.
As you listen to each disputant, say, “I see” or “uh huh” to acknowledge the information and
encourage them to continue to open up to you.

Step 2: Look beyond the incident. Often, it is not the situation but the perspective on the situation
that causes anger to fester and ultimately leads to a shouting match or other visible—and
disruptive—evidence of a conflict.

The source of the conflict might be a minor problem that occurred months before, but the level of
stress has grown to the point where the two parties have begun attacking each other personally
instead of addressing the real problem. In the calm of your office, you can get them to look beyond
the triggering incident to see the real cause. Once again, probing questions will help, like, “What do
you think happened here?” or “When do you think the problem between you first arose?”
Step 3: Request solutions. After getting each party’s viewpoint on the conflict, the next step is to
get each to identify how the situation could be changed. Again, question the parties to solicit their
ideas: “How can you make things better between you?”

As mediator, you have to be an active listener, aware of every verbal nuance, as well as a good
reader of body language.

Just listen. You want to get the disputants to stop fighting and start cooperating, and that means
steering the discussion away from finger pointing and toward ways of resolving the conflict.

Step 4: Identify solutions both disputants can support. You are listening for the most acceptable
course of action. Point out the merits of various ideas, not only from each other’s perspective, but in
terms of the benefits to the organization. (For instance, you might point to the need for greater
cooperation and collaboration to effectively address team issues and departmental problems.)
Step 5: Agreement. The mediator needs to get the two parties to shake hands and agree to one of
the alternatives identified in Step 4. Some mediators go as far as to write up a contract in which
actions and time frames are specified. However, it might be sufficient to meet with the individuals
and have them answer these questions: “What action plans will you both put in place to prevent
conflicts from arising in the future?” and “What will you do if problems arise in the future?”

Managers must deal with a broad range of conflicts, many of which

involve parties external to the organization: valuable business partners,
threatening competitors, or inquisitive regulators. But scorched-earth
litigation followed by an on-the-courthouse-steps settlement is clearly
not the answer to every dispute. Dealing with a competitor turned
potential alliance partner whose third-level subsidiary may be infringing
on a patent calls for a different approach than does responding to a
“professional plaintiff” who has filed a frivolous shareholder derivative
suit. Both of these may be different still from how one might want to
manage the plausible antitrust claim of a disgruntled distributor.

Characteristics That Add to the

Complexity of Network Disputes
Networks are inter-organizational and interpersonal. There are multiple forums for
decision making. There are multiple parties and multiple issues. Oftentimes,
there is technical complexity. There may be unequal power and resources.
Conflicts in networks often are public and sometimes political. All of these
characteristics make managing conflicts in networks extraordinarily challenging
and generate an important public management paradox: Collaboration may yield
conflict:
Networks and Conflict with the Public Particularly for public organizations that are
in net-works, there is a unique responsibility to citizens. Conflict has emerged
because of a perceived lack of transparency of networks and perceived problems
with accountability, and because networks often address issues of concern to the
public. Managers operating in networks must collaborate with other network
participants to determine when and how to engage the public in decision making.
The interest-based collaborative problem-solving tools and approaches discussed
in this report take many forms in collaborative governance processes and are use-
ful to managers who work in networks. Participatory democracy, deliberation and
dialogue, deliberative democracy, and, more broadly, collaborative gover-
nance have emerged as a movement in response to perceived failings in
representative democracy with respect to conflict over public policy. This move-
ment seeks more citizen deliberation, dialogue, and shared decision making in
governance and is directly applicable to the work of networks.In sum, network
complexity yields conflict that can spiral if not managed. Interest-based negotiation
provides managers the skills they need. Negotiating governance structures can
prevent conflicts down the road. Managers should plan for involving the public to
resolve conflicts which may result over policy issues.