THERORIES THAT EXPLAIN CONFLICT

Introduction It is a fact that conflict exists and it is not necessarily a bad thing; as long as it is resolved effectively it can lead to personal and professional growth. In many cases, effective conflict resolution can make the difference between positive and negative outcomes (Deutsch, 1973). Increasing knowledge and skill in negotiation can save both time and money; teams who work well together are more productive. There is an order to conflict and the in the way we identify it and respond to it. As we understand conflict better we begin to see patterns emerge. The more we understand individuals in conflict the more we are able to respond thoughtfully. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) assesses an individual's behavior in conflict situations (Thomas & Kilmann, March 2, 2010). According to Thomas and kilmann, in conflict situations, we can describe a persons behavior along two basic dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns, and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other persons concerns. These two dimensions of behavior can be used to define five methods of dealing with conflict. These five conflict-handling modes are: 1. Competing is assertive and uncooperative, a power-oriented mode. When competing, an individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other persons expense, using whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her position. Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position you believe is correct, or simply trying to win. 2. Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative. When collaborating, an individual attempts to work with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both. It involves digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an alternative that meets both sets of concerns. 3. Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising, an individual has the objective of finding an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Compromising falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating. 4. Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his or her own concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. 5. Accommodating is unassertive and cooperativethe opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Professionals trained I conflict resolution tend to favor a collaborative process where they assist parties involved in the conflict to resolve their differences in a voluntary and amicable agreement. Approaches to conflict resolution can be classified as: Needs- based approach According to the needs based theory of conflict analysis and resolution, conflict is rooted in the denial of basic human needs such as identity recognition and security. The satisfaction of these needs must be central to conflict management .According to Hoffman (1992), application of this theory in social conflict situations is particularly rich and useful.

Rights- based approach In the rights-based approach, decisions are made by reference to legal rules. Such methods include formally taking the conflict to a court of law for judgment, or referring it to an arbitrator who has the power to impose a decision. Informally, a rights-based approach might consist of arguing for a favored position because it is my right. In each case, the conflict is set up so a party either wins or loses the case, constructing a win-lose situation. Interest -based approach With the interest based approach the focus is on both parties satisfying their joint and individual interests and needs. They collaborate to produce a win- win situation. This transformative approach fosters mutual understanding and empowerment between the parties where the process is more important than the outcome. (Alam).According to Interest based negotiation can be distinguished from the traditional rights-based approach in the following way:
Rights-based Approach Independent Objective is win-lose Adopts adversarial method Result is compromise Characterized by combativeness Debate issues Cautious in offers Frequent use of threat Proposes limited or single solutions Engages in conflict Participants are considered adversaries Highly positional Information retracting is seen as a weapon to win and defeat other Results in strained relationship Interests-based Approach Interdependent Objective is mutual gains win-win Adopts collaborative method Result is consensus Characterized by mutual problem solving Discuss problems and solve them Innovative ideas Explores interests and needs Always keeps options open to discuss Manages conflict Focuses on partnering High focus on interest Information disclosure is seen as a basis for mutual gain Bolsters relationship

Adapted from: U.S. Department of Interior r Bureau of Reclamation, Conflict Management Guidebook, Chapter 2, p.13

Power- based Approach In the power-based approach to conflict, a party attempts to resolve the conflict in its own favor through assertion of power over the other party. The source of power, and how it is used, will vary from one context to another. For example, it may be military or economic power in international contexts, the power to hire and fire in organizational settings, or physical strength or emotional coercion in interpersonal conflicts. Violence, domination, oppression, and exploitation, the abuses mentioned in our definition of peace psychology, might be seen as abuses of power over others. Conflict resolution not only argues specifically against these abuses but more fundamentally rejects the use of power as an approach to conflict.

Bibliography

1. Alam, N. Interplay of interest-based win win approach in conflict management: a brief look into various ADR METHODS. 2. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (March 2, 2010). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. CPP, Inc. 3. Adapted from: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Conflict Management Guidebook, Chapter 2, p.13 (August 1998) < http://www.usbr.gov/hr/conflict/ADR.pdf > (last visited on March 29, 2003).