Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Inside the business world, the ability to resolve conflict is an invaluable resource. Conflict takes many different forms,
many of which are subtle and unobservable.
Awareness of a conflict, whether internal, or external is a first step towards resolution. This article will address the basic
aspects of the conflict resolution process.
Significance
The need for effective conflict resolution practices is present in all areas of any society. Business, government, family life,
all require a certain level of cooperation in order to function effectively. The importance of learning how to resolve
conflict became most apparent in the 1950's and 1960's during the Cold War.
Experts from the United States and Europe from various fields came to together to identify and implement conflict
resolution strategies to present to international officials. Their efforts were unsuccessful at the time, however the study of
conflict resolution grew from there. The importance of keeping the peace in the face of nuclear threat prompted the need
for understanding and managing conflict.
Theories/Speculation
One well known theory on conflict resolution is the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), made up of conflict
style descriptions, first formulated by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilman in the 1970s. This model addresses the five
conflict resolution styles seen in the general populace.
They are: Þ Competitive Þ Collaborative Þ Compromising Þ Accommodating Þ Avoiding
The theory proposes that in identifying and understanding individual conflict resolution styles, we're better able to
formulate an approach that would best resolve a particular set of circumstances.
Identification
Conflict resolution approaches typically start out with identifying the key stages of conflict escalation. Initially, a
backdrop, or background friction may exist. The emergence of the actual conflict would then be the first or second stage.
Hard feelings, or stalemates may occur at this point, after which the de-escalation phase can begin.
The actual resolution process is free to begin once negative drives are effaced and processed. Both sides can now take
more inclusive perspectives and work towards solutions that benefit both parties. Once a resolution is reached, the
restoration of peace can begin.
Function
Through effective conflict resolution practice, interpersonal relations benefit in several ways. It encourages input from all
parties involved, and creates a two (or more)-way conversation model. Each participant is then able to acknowledge the
importance of others' views and perspective.
By asking questions and encouraging an exchange of ideas, conflicts can be resolved through a win-win approach where
all interests are factored into the outcome. The result is mutual respect and a deeper understanding and appreciation of
interpersonal relations in general.
Effects
Conflict is a part of life. It's only a bad thing if conflicts are never resolved. Once resolved, though, the outcome is
growth, be it personal, or professional. When done correctly, conflict resolution can lead to a better understanding of
ourselves and others. When team dynamics are involved, consistent conflict resolution practices promote a sense of team
morale and capability.
Disagreements will lead to an outcome, one way or another. Employing effective conflict resolution skills can mean the
difference between a positive or a negative outcome. The more quickly conflicts are resolved, the earlier progress can be
made.
About Workplace Conflict Resolution Workplace Conflict
Workplace conflict is inevitable, yet it need not be destructive. Common knowledge tells us that no one likes to be
disagreed with or confronted, and that anger brings more harm that what caused it in the first place. There are rational
means to deal with conflicts and end them before they hurt productivity and worker morale.
Function
Resolving workplace conflicts is an important management and human resource tool. These kinds of conflicts can
destroy an otherwise smoothly operating office or factory. The function, therefore, of conflict resolution is to permit labor
to work together and with management with as little anger, resentment or envy as possible. What is really happening is
that thoughts are being clarified. Issues need to be brought out into the open and all opinions heard on the subject. Once
this is done, and all issues have been rationally identified, the scope of disagreement often becomes less and less. When
emotions are placed out of the way and facts and logic are put in their place, disagreement becomes far more easy to
manage.
Features
According to experts at the Leadership Institute, avoiding anger is a difficult, but a necessary ingredient in resolving
conflicts. Anger can simmer in an individual, getting worse and worse as time goes on. Dealing with these emotional
issues is central. Finding common ground is always important. Disagreement and confrontation never work. What works
is compromise and understanding all points of view as sympathetic as possible. Even more, after a battle has died down,
structures must be in place in order to mend fences. Simmering anger will accomplish nothing.
Benefits
The main benefits of a rational program of conflict resolution is a well-oiled workplace. Conflict harms the workplace
environment and can severely hurt productivity. Morale can never be underestimated. By highlighting the nature of issues,
the root causes can assist workers in clarifying their own thoughts, they can worry far more about the facts and real issues
rather than their hurt pride or violated "turf."
Prevention
Workers must think clearly about their jobs, but most importantly, about each other. Emotions can cloud judgment and
facts can be cast aside. It is the job of management and human resources to identify problems before they become pitched
battles. Workers need to know their own field of endeavor and not encroach on others. Job descriptions should be
detailed, and their purpose (among other things) is to show whose turf is whose. A rational division of labor can serve to
prevent many (if not most) office battles. It should be made clear that gossip and idle talk will not be permitted. This is
how rumors spread and feelings are hurt. This can only harm the firm.
Warning
One must not assume everyone is rational. There are some who are too immature to see anything other than their own
sense of importance. Again, human resources has the job of weeding out this level of immaturity before it harms the
workplace.
As a professional mediator, I've seen my share of office politics and soured working relationships. Though each
workplace is unique, I've discovered some fairly common ways people cause problems with coworkers that they later
come to regret. Avoid landing in hot water by steering clear of these common behaviors.
Not filtering anything you say can feel good in the moment -- but only to you. Belittling, shaming or embarrassing
coworkers tags you as the office bully. If respect is important to you (and you know it is), being able to disagree with
someone without name-calling, heavy sighs, eye rolling or verbal insults shows you can address a troubling situation
respectfully without making it worse.
Instead of approaching colleagues with the attitude that negative motivation is the best tactic to get them to act ("Are we
still paying you?!"), adopt an attitude that any kind of personal bashing has no place in a successful business. Sharing
positive feedback or giving praise doesn't create a team of namby-pamby babies who need constant coddling. Rather, it
creates an environment in which others are free to compliment you as much and as often as you compliment them. What
goes around comes around, so think before you speak.
Taking action without consulting anyone else can start some really good fights. If you want to burn colleagues who are
tired of your Monday morning memos surprising them with decisions in which they had absolutely no say, then by all
means only use your ideas. Doubting a coworker's ability to contribute to your success or believing that constructive
criticism is just a backdoor way for someone to sabotage you can be a mistake. There's always the exception to the rule,
but if a colleague is trying to warn you of potential pitfalls, take him seriously. Even employees beneath you can come up
with great solutions, so be open to a variety of ideas from a variety of sources.
Asking a few well-placed questions before making a decision will show others that you’re mindful and capable of seeing
the bigger picture. Being arrogant, paranoid and thinking you have to make all the decisions by yourself can weigh
heavily on you. If more than three people have told you the same thing about your behavior or attitude toward decision
making, it's time for an adjustment on your part.
Sparring works well for world-class boxers but throwing unsuspecting coworkers into the ring doesn't toughen them up. It
just makes them angry when they realize you're orchestrating tension between them. Some believe that pitting employees
against each other is a great way to eke out a few more sales or finish a project sooner. But doubling or tripling efforts on
the same task doesn't result in a positive outcome if employees are tripping over each other, focused more on getting upset
with one another than on getting the job done. Asking more than one person to work on a task and then picking a favorite
doesn't benefit anyone either. The winner is put an awkward position with her peers; the loser is humiliated.
Similarly, having a with-us-or-against-us attitude or making disparaging remarks about other groups may create new
conflicts out of old rivalries. Rather than using competition as a way to squash others, create and build a new definition of
success. If you personally would like to get noticed for a job well done, build people up based on their individual strengths
and talents, and they'll return the favor. Competing against yourself -- and winning -- is always the most satisfying
(especially at review time).
Matchmakers claim that mystery can be intoxicating when you first meet a potential mate, but being coy at work frustrates
people. Using wimpy language like "when you get to it," giving hazy instructions before running out of the room or
making someone else break the news to a coworker that he's not going anywhere until he finishes the marketing plan will
create problems. You won't be seen as the good guy if you let vagueness become your communication standard.
Avoid being the employee whose behavior can best be described as "trying to nail gelatin to the wall." Don't let others
think you're on the same page and then bamboozle them with the complete opposite. Your colleagues will lose all trust in
you, and your boss won’t be able to count on you because your word means nothing.
Your coworkers will appreciate clear, concise language. It's OK to disagree but make sure people know what you’re
disagreeing with. It's much easier to come to a resolution on real issues than it is to play 20 questions or resolve the wrong
problems.
Hiding or ignoring the fact that you've mishandled a situation or slinking around to garner sympathy for poor outcomes
takes more energy than humbly owning up to an error and working to repair whatever damage your actions may have
caused. Ignoring occasions for self-reflection or side-stepping learning opportunities makes others feel they need to
organize an inquisition against you. The fight becomes the focus rather than the work.
The easiest way to deflate anger with a coworker is to listen to her perspective, come clean about your participation in the
conflict and work together to figure out ways to avoid similar situations in the future. Simply keeping your blinders on
and worrying only about yourself isn't enough. Consider her point of view (remember, understanding her perspective
doesn't mean you agree) and see if you can come up with a solution that satisfies both of you. Your coworkers and career
will thank you.
What is Conflict?
Conflict is an unavoidable aspect of everyday life. Whether it be with others, yourself or an organization, conflict is an
inevitable aspect of life experience. Understanding how it starts and how it escalates goes a long way towards knowing
how to use it to your advantage. This article will address how to spot the seeds of conflict in a situation and take
advantage of the possible outcomes that conflict can provide.
Features
1. Conflict occurs between two or more people who disagree on an issue that threatens their respective goals, values
or needs. How the participants in a disagreement perceive this threat determines to a great extent how heated the conflict
can become. With only so many resources and opportunities available within any social setting, it's not uncommon for
conflicts to arise. On the contrary, when handled effectively conflict can lead to personal growth and create the change
needed to improve interpersonal relations overall.
The ultimate root of conflict happens when you perceive something or someone as a threat to some area of your well
being. Threats typically trigger emotional or psychological responses. When this happens your ability to view and
approach the situation in an objective manner is hampered. This, in turn, makes it seem like there's a limited number of
solutions to a particular problem. Once perspective is hampered by emotion, communication becomes difficult.
Focusing on each party's vested interests, rather than the perceived threats is a more effective way of handling conflict.
This approach creates an environment in which both party's needs can be expressed. The shifting of focus works to reduce
the emotional drive to protect your interests. The interaction then becomes a solution-based exchange where emotional
factors can be expressed and addressed.
Effects
2. As with all things emotional, the ingredients for conflict can be present long before an actual altercation takes
place. The ability to identify and address conflict at an early stage reduces the likelihood of escalation. To do this, it helps
to understand how people are apt to communicate (or not communicate) their concerns.
One theory holds that individuals typically fall into one of the four basic personality temperaments: choleric--these are
bold, direct communicators who can be intimidating, but are open to change; phlegmatic--these are fact-driven types who
dislike conflict, and change; sanguine--these types welcome conflict for the expression and exchange of ideas. They see
change as an adventure and melancholic--these types are all about the status quo. They don't like to rock the boat. They
don't like change.
Conflict, whether expressed or not, invokes change. Whether the change is positive or negative depends on how the
situation is handled. Those who fall under a personality type that's uncomfortable with change benefit most from an
exchange that allows for the expression of vested interests and needs. Understanding the reasons for a conflict and the
need for change is essential to moving the process of conflict resolution along.
Types
3.
Conflict can take many different forms. Being able to identity the type of conflict brewing, or in play helps with the
resolution process. There are five types to consider.
1. Structural: these are caused by external forces such as occur within an organization--work loads, availability of
resources, time constraints. Structural conflicts require structural solutions.
2. Data: these have to do with the information processes in place within the organization. Disagreements over data can be
caused by the process itself or misunderstandings on how the process should work. Changes in the process, or a thorough
explanation on how it works is the solution approach needed.
3. Values: these are based on individual belief systems and are the hardest to resolve. The best approach here is to
encourage an understanding and respect of each others values.
4. Relationship: these typically center around conflicting personality issues which lead to negative behaviors. Sometimes
resolution can be reached through understanding each other's reasons for disagreement depending on how ingrained said
issues are. Boundary setting in terms of establishing a cordial respect for those involved may be all that's possible in this
instance.
5. Interests: these happen as result of perceived threats to one's goals, or needs. Emotional and psychological factors may
be present on both sides. A solution-based approach that addresses each party's interests, desired outcomes and positive
intentions can reduce the likelihood of perceived threats dictating the resolution process.
Theories/Speculation
4. One popular theory on why conflict exists was proposed by Karl Marx, a German theorist and political activist of
the 19th century. Marx attributed the basis of conflict to materialism, in that norms established in the marketplace (the
world of work) dictate our individual class associations, and interests therein. He theorized that the resulting set of class
consciousnesses, representing different socioeconomic levels and interests, leads to the inevitable conflicts that we face
from day to day.
According to Marx, the individual's sense of a class consciousness was necessary for constructive change to happen. He
viewed society's power holders as opposed to the notion of class consciousness as a means to maintain their positions.
Instead, power holders promoted the notion of individual consciousness as a way to weaken the impact of mass, or class,
conflicts. Many of today's economists and sociologists view Marx's theory to be a prevailing force within modern day
society.
Benefits
5.
As stressful as conflict can become at times, there are genuine benefits to resolving it that would otherwise not present
themselves if it didn't arise. Benefits can come in the form of personal growth, stronger relationship bonds, increased
productivity and an overall boost in morale. The occurrence of conflict opens up areas that would otherwise find little, to
no motivation for growth and change.
Examples of the benefits to effective resolution can be found in all areas of society. Conflicts occurring on the
international level have led to numerous trade relation agreements across the globe as well as peace treaties invoked by
countries with opposing interests. In the areas of business, strategies and approaches have increasingly favored the "win-
win" perspective in business negotiations. As far as personal relationships go, the ability to address concerns and interests
makes for long-term bonds that strengthen over time.
Our Conflict Resolution Training & Negotiation Training Program contain powerful conflict resolution techniques -
negotiation, assertiveness and persuasion – and significantly help improve workplace conflict resolution.
Conflict is the result of people having differing needs, opinions, and expectations. The reality of conflict is that in any
human relationship it is inevitable. More importantly, if handled well conflict provides a powerful avenue for significant
growth. Hence developing good conflict resolution techniques is very important and essential.
Conflict resolution involves recognizing and managing the particular conflict. This is an essential part of building
emotional intelligence, and nurturing relationships. Poorly handled conflict can affect both the employees and the clients
thereby impacting the company’s bottom-line. To maintain your competitive advantage, you need the entire organization
to focus on developing conflict resolution strategies to quickly and effectively resolve conflict, while building trust and
commitment with clients and colleagues.
MMM Training Solutions Conflict Resolution Skills Training program provides techniques for individuals in an
organization to resolve workplace conflict and build a common understanding and framework for working through
challenging conflict situations. We have, after much research, decided to focus on the Win-Win Approach using the three
critical skills of conflict resolution – Negotiation, Assertiveness and Persuasion. These skills will enable the participants
to develop conflict resolution strategies for quickly and effectively recognizing, resolving and preventing conflict.
• WIN/WIN Approach
• Managing Emotions
• Negotiation Skills
• Assertiveness Skills
• Persuasive Skills
• Outcomes:
o Increased employee morale
o Increased employee productivity
o Increased employee communication
o Increased customer satisfaction
o Increased customer base
o Increased profitability
Conflict resolution is a broad term which encompasses various strategies intended to resolve a conflict by identifying its
source, and eliminating it. When two factions with a different approach to a problem come together, the chances of
conflicts between them cannot be ruled out. Even though there do exist positive outcomes of conflicts, such outcomes are
very rare. Conflicts are known to have more detrimental effects than positive ones, and thus resolving such issues at the
earliest has to be your priority. While a few of these conflict resolution strategies stress on a full fledged offensive, most
of them highlight the need of negotiation and diplomacy. Some of the most popular conflict resolution styles are discussed
below.
Avoiding a Conflict
This is by far the easiest way of resolving conflict at the work place. In the competitive world of today, there are
significant chances of you coming at loggerheads with people around you. Even if you don't interact when working,
competitive edge may drive you at the loggerheads. In such a scenario you can opt for a non-confrontational approach,
and avoid the person with whom you are likely to get into further arguments. though it is the best conflict resolution
method at the workplace, it is efficient in other circumstances as well.
Winning Habits
While avoiding the person is a wise option, this might not work when the other person has a contradictory view. In such a
scenario, winning is the best way to resolve a workplace conflict. Unlike avoidance, winning is a confrontational,
aggressive approach in which your only goal is to get an upper hand over the other person. In order to get into this mode
you need to be firm on your decisions and know what you want. The competitive approach involved here can be socially
incorrect at times, but this is the best approach for conflict resolution at workplace, wherein the need of the hour is to
prove a point.
Compromising with the situation: You can resort to this style of resolving conflict when you want to choose the middle
path between being assertive and being evasive. This is a diplomatic approach wherein your actual conflict resolution
skills will come into the picture. In most of the cases, the end result is partial satisfaction for both the sides as both choose
to compromise and take the middle path. Ideally, you should resort to this style when both the sides are equal and the
chances of losing something are more prominent than winning it. This style works best when it comes to conflicts in
relationships.
Accommodating to the requirements: Among the various conflict resolution types, getting accommodated to the other
persons' requirements is perhaps the most selfless approach. You can go for this style of conflict resolution when you are
willing to resolve the conflict at the cost of your own needs. In this method, you need to be cooperative as well as non-
assertive to resolve conflicts with others. This approach is seldom seen in the corporate world today, wherein moves are
made by diplomatic and competitive approach. As in case of compromising, this mode also works in context of
relationships.
These were some of the most popular conflict resolution styles which you can resort to in order to resolve conflicts with
others. At the end of the day, people around you have to be your first priority and that is where conflict resolution
activities should comes into picture. Handling conflicts properly can help you get rid of numerous issues and aftereffects
associated with it, and multiply the positive outcomes of your personal as well as professional relationships.
Ascent of Conflict and the Death of Resolutionby Wasif Rizvi Courtesy to "Vimukt Shiksha"
It seems ironically befitting to elaborate on the theme of "conflict resolution" in the closing
months of the 20th century — which happens to be by far the most violent and the bloodiest in
human history. More than 80 million people have been killed in direct warfare in this century,
which roughly amounts to about 2200 violent deaths every single day for the last 100 years.
More than 3/4 of these fatalities have directly involved Europeans/Americans. The great
proponents of peace, conflict resolution, and human rights have conveniently ignored this glaring
contradiction when carrying out their foreign/domestic policy agendas.
While brutal violence has grown as a regular instrument in promoting exploitative and racist
agendas, the so-called ‘timid’ ideals of peaceful dialogue, respect, and magnanimity have been
reduced to garnishing meaningless UN resolutions. In this article, I argue that the numerous
conflicts that are emerging are a direct result of the existing Global World Order. Most of these
conflicts around the world don’t just naturally happen, but rather are manufactured. I
begin by analyzing the historical intellectual roots of this GWO. I then examine how this intense
pathology continues to manifest itself in the contemporary world through institutions such as the
United Nations and factory-schooling. Finally, I conclude with some ideas on how to initiate
societal processes for empowering new capacities and spaces to transform conflicts.
Historically, many social, political and economic theories have glorified war and genocide on
‘scientific’, ‘pragmatic’, or even ‘natural’ grounds. According to the ‘Enlightenment’ scholars,
moral principles of justice, dignity and solidarity were unknown to human civilizations until three
centuries ago (which, of course, conveniently coincides with the ascendancy of Western powers
as dominant global forces). In their expansionist quest to ‘civilize’ their little brown and black
brothers, Europeans and North Americans proceeded to engage in the worst forms of deceit,
fraud, brutality, theft, slave trade, and destruction of indigenous societal structures. The
extermination of millions of Native Americans and Aborigines, the enslavement of many millions
of Africans, and the colonization of Asians was further justified through Darwin’s doctrine of
survival of the fittest. This theory of ‘natural order’ was bluntly applied to silence the murmurs of
anyone who dared to question such barbaric actions on ethical grounds.
I should clarify that I do not claim the world was a peaceful Utopia before the European
invasions, but everywhere the Portuguese, French, Spanish, English, and Dutch went, they raised
the level of violence to an extraordinary degree. As a historian of the East India Company
describes, "warfare in India was still a sport, in Europe it had become a science."
After exterminating millions of innocent people and hammering a large chunk of humanity into
submission, the great ‘civilizers’ turned their attention towards building great bastions of fascism
and repression in their own homelands. After two monstrous wars, in which millions of people
were slaughtered, the civilizers decided to create an international body to resolve conflicts.
Though overt European imperialism had collapsed, good old Darwinist principles had found a
new home in the United Nations i.e., countries possessing more brute force than others would
now be legally allowed through the international agencies and ‘independent’ nation state
structures to continue their agendas of exploitation and extraction of resources from the
powerless.
It is important to note that more than 80% of the world production and sales in arms (including
weapons to those so-called ‘terrorists’) is carried out by the voting member countries of the UN
Security Council. These sales still account for a significant portion of their economic stability and
growth. It is also interesting to note that the U.S. is far in the lead in vetoing Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions -- when these might challenge their own puppet dictators in
different countries. Despite what we are made to think, the decisions taken by the UN are not in
interests of justice or peace for humanity; but rather stem from the cold, calculating logic of
geopolitical and economic interests.
The UN typically uses international aid/debt as its soft tool of coercion but when this doesn’t
work, other approaches can be called upon to silence disobedience. The massacre of the Iraqi
people by the United States, in order to ensure its supply of cheap oil reserves, represents one of
the most abhorrent displays of the obsessive pursuit of mass destruction and total disregard for
both human life and for possibilities of peaceful resolution of conflict. As observed by The Times
of India, the Iraq saga reveals Western civilization’s "unrestricted appetite for dominance, its
morbid fascination for hi-tech military might, its insensitivity to ‘alien’ cultures, and its appalling
jingoism." Most recently, as the U.S. and Britain disregarded the UN process when bombing Iraq,
CNN and the New York Times assured us that ‘the world’ was united against Iraq. Kofi Annan was
reduced to a spectator in this most ghastly horror show.
For the Third World, the message of the new Global World Order has been simple: Don’t raise
your heads, because "What we say, goes." Or otherwise loosely translated: ‘we are the masters,
you shine our shoes, and don’t you ever forget it.’ Those who follow are rewarded; those who
don’t are punished. Such examples serve to highlight America’s arrogant claim on being the
judge, jury and executioner for the world and the limitations that sincere resolution efforts face
in this global environment of unparalleled hostility and hypocrisy.
To pull us out of this morass, a serious strategy must include: 1) unmasking and seriously
reflecting on so-called ‘historical truths’ with a view towards reconciliation and regeneration;
and, 2) generating a new sense of social and intellectual consciousness and confidence amongst
individuals and communities. Such a generative critique will also require us to closely examine
how rld.
In these bleak times, educators face a monumental moral and intellectual challenge. They must
ask themselves, "What kind of consciousness does schooling really create? Does it produce a
conglomerate of self-indulgent, competitive consumers? Indifferent, soul-less, confused citizens?
How must schooling be transformed to facilitate a public consciousness imbued with confidence,
a desire for justice, a sense of deeper meaning, and respect for all life?" To answer these
questions, we cannot look to testing, teacher training, textbooks, or to other mundane details of
school management.
Instead, creating the answer will depend on rediscovering and reclaiming our faith in those
elements which are integral to our humanity — our inherent capacities to trust, to love, to hope.
It will also call on us to challenge the Global World Order (and its local counter-parts) by
questioning and exposing the agendas behind such notions as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’,
‘nationalism,’ ‘liberalization’, and ‘progress’. Lastly, it will require that we break away from the
formal mechanisms of conflict resolution that are left over from our colonial masters and work to
create new learning spaces, societal role models, and knowledge systems for engaging in more
meaningful and just interactions.