Prefac e
Collaborative Approaches to Resolving Conflict wa s writte n i n respons e t o th e growin g numbe r of student s an d practitioner s i n th e conflic t managemen t field . Ou r goa l i s t o provid e a conflic t managemen t surve y book , blendin g bot h theor y an d practice , a s wel l a s introduc e reader s t o th e wid e variet y of method s availabl e for managin g o r resolvin g conflict
Th e subjec t matte r of thi s boo k addresse s th e need s of severa l audiences
On e grou p of reader s i s colleg e an d universit y student s engage d i n th e stud y of conflict . Ther e i s a n explosio n of course s an d program s focusin g o n conflic t managemen t i n highe r education . Th e movemen t towar d mor e collaborativ e approache s for dealin g wit h conflic t i s a globa l trend . I n addition , course s i n conflic t managemen t ar e beginnin g t o appea r i n school s of socia l work , internationa l studies , busines s schools , an d eve n i n libera l arts
A secon d majo r audienc e is compose d of professional s i n department s of huma n resource s wh o wan t t o kno w ho w t o avoi d th e hig h cost s of employe e conflicts . Man y huma n resourc e specialist s an d corporat e counsel s ar e adoptin g procedure s tha t ar e mor e collaborative , les s formal , an d les s costly Outcome s ar e encouraging , bu t selectin g th e mos t appropriat e metho d for a specifi c conflict require s knowledg e abou t th e variou s method s available
Organization s tha t includ e conflic t managemen t skill s trainin g i n leadershi p developmen t package s wil l fin d thi s boo k useful Th e boo k provide s alternative s for managin g conflic t an d describe s th e skill s necessar y t o resolv e it
Division s of th e chapters , suc h a s "definitions, " "values, " "typologies, " o r "strength s an d weaknesses, " enabl e th e reade r t o bot h clarif y th e centra l factor s of a n approac h an d mak e comparison s wit h othe r approaches Becaus e th e abilit y t o manag e conflic t involve s mor e tha n jus t informatio n abou t conflict , eac h of th e chapter s include s profile s of professional s wher e th e reade r i s abl e t o se e wha t experience d an d respecte d practitioner s regar d a s mos t important . We be -
liev e tha t thes e profile s wil l brin g th e reade r close r t o curren t practic e i n th e field
So tha t reader s coul d mak e comparison s betwee n th e challenge s an d opportunitie s i n conflic t management , th e sam e se t of question s wa s aske d of practitioner s i n 30 - t o 90-minut e interviews . Th e variet y of response s t o th e question s demonstrate s th e wid e rang e of opinion s abou t ho w conflic t i s bes t managed . Chapte r 10 summarize s th e commonalitie s an d difference s foun d i n intervie w responses Reader s wh o ar e intereste d i n curren t debate s i n th e fiel d wil l fin d thi s discussio n insightful
Base d o n a revie w of th e conflic t managemen t literatur e an d feedbac k fro m colleague s i n th e field , th e followin g intervie w question s wer e asked :
1. Ho w di d you become involved in th e practice of negotiation , mediation , etc.?
2. What kind of wor k d o you currentl y do?
3. What skills or trainin g woul d yo u recommend for a beginner ?
4. What make s yo u good at wha t yo u do?
5. Ho w d o yo u prepar e for a session?
6. Describe a typical session.
7 What is essential for success?
8 Wha t are challenges in you r work?
9 Hav e you mad e mistakes, and , if so, wha t hav e yo u learne d from them ?
10 What changes d o you see occurring in th e conflict managemen t field?
Th e author s ar e bot h university-base d teacher s an d practitioner s i n th e field , an d w e brin g a broa d experienc e t o th e tas k of understandin g an d managin g conflict Ou r background s includ e conflic t managemen t consultin g i n healt h care , engineering , government , education , churches , an d industry Mik e Spangl e serve s a s directo r of th e Applie d Communication s an d Alternat e Disput e Resolutio n departmen t a t th e Universit y of Denver ; Myr a Isenhar t i s a full-tim e consultan t an d traine r for industr y an d communit y groups Bot h of th e author s teac h universit y course s i n th e area s of conflic t management , negotiation , an d facilitation
We believ e tha t ou r students , ou r community , an d th e fiel d of conflic t studie s wil l benefi t fro m thi s overvie w of bot h traditiona l an d contemporar y method s for managin g an d resolvin g conflict Th e boo k wa s designe d t o b e practical ; it s conten t i s supporte d b y curren t example s an d grounde d i n th e wor k of man y scholars .
Man y peopl e hav e contribute d t o th e completio n of thi s work We wis h t o than k ou r editors , particularl y Marquit a Flemming , wh o graspe d th e concep t of
blendin g theor y an d practic e i n addressin g a growin g nationa l nee d for mor e constructiv e approache s t o dealin g wit h conflict . We wis h t o expres s ou r gratitud e t o ou r families , wh o assisted , encouraged , an d waite d patientl y durin g th e prolonge d productio n of thi s book . We wan t t o expres s ou r thank s t o Laur a Buseman , PhD , wh o provide d encouragemen t durin g editin g of som e roug h firs t drafts . Specia l appreciatio n goe s t o graduat e student s wh o assiste d i n variou s ways : Tin a Martila n wrot e verbatim s of th e interviews ; Barbar a Cashma n Hah n an d Mari e Hay s wer e tireles s i n thei r editin g contributions ; an d man y graduat e student s an d facult y fro m th e Universit y of Denve r wh o provide d feedbac k alon g th e way .
Theoretica l Perspective s
The place we need really imaginative new ideas is in conflict theory. That's true with respect to war and peace, but also it's true domestically. The real weakness throughout the country is lack of conflict resolution methods other than litigation and guns. (Toffler, 1991 , p . 13)
Conflic t consume s a n enormou s amoun t of time , energy , an d mone y i n moder n America n life. Communit y Board s i n Ne w York Cit y se e mor e tha n 14,000 neighborhoo d dispute s pe r year . Currently , ther e ar e mor e tha n 40 0 communit y justic e center s an d 100 victim-offende r program s i n th e Unite d States
Th e U.S Posta l Servic e report s 150,000 grievanc e proceeding s an d 69,000 disciplinar y action s pe r year . Durin g 1994, American s file d 18 millio n case s i n court s a t a cos t of $300 billio n (Hoffman , 1996). Som e estimat e tha t litigatio n activitie s consum e a s muc h a s 20 % of Fortun e 500 executives ' wor k time . I n th e Unite d States , 95 % of th e la w school s an d mos t college s an d universitie s offer course s i n conflic t managemen t o r alternat e disput e resolutio n a s par t of thei r curricula
Week s (1992) states , "Conflic t i s a n inescapabl e par t of ou r dail y lives , a n inevitabl e resul t of ou r highl y complex , competitiv e an d ofte n litigiou s society " (p ix) Conflic t i s intrinsi c t o organizations , families , an d moder n cit y life Headline s i n a recen t newspape r reflec t recurrin g theme s i n th e Unite d States :
01 Boy Arrested After Threat to School Official
[I Agency Offers Battered Women Some Security
(3 Union Chief Rouses Strikers
(3 Employee Endures Racially Hostile Environment
IJ Road Rage Campaign Fields 3500 Complaints
Th e increas e i n communit y violence , famil y breakups , wor k grievances , an d cour t case s suggest s tha t w e ar e no t doin g ver y wel l wit h managin g ou r conflict . Fisher , Kopelman , an d Schneide r (1994) cal l conflic t a "growt h industry " (p 1)
I n mos t settings , whe n human s liv e an d wor k together , conflic t erupts , sometime s i n ver y unexpecte d way s (Box 1.1)
Levin e (1998) propose s tha t th e growt h of conflic t i n America n cultur e result s fro m man y forces , whic h includ e th e following :
3 Breakdown in the covenant of trust among people wh o are members of the same community
U Lack of communication
IJ People focusing on themselves
3 Concerns about rights and entitlements withou t thinking about the responsibilities toward others, (p 15)
Th e growt h of conflic t ma y als o b e relate d t o urbanization , tha t is , mor e peopl e i n a smalle r area . I t ma y b e th e long-ter m resul t of th e alienatio n tha t occur s whe n peopl e los e a sens e of community . I n ever y presidentia l electio n campaign , politician s cit e th e breakdow n of mora l value s an d dissolutio n of familie s a s th e fuelin g factor s for cultura l problems
Conflic t Is .
Becaus e of it s man y overlappin g dynamic s an d processes , conflic t i s complex . If conflic t involve d onl y a decisio n betwee n tw o choices , mos t of u s woul d compromis e o r negotiate Bu t often , conflic t involve s a struggl e for power , th e wa y decision s ar e made , th e wa y w e tal k t o eac h other , o r unresolve d problem s fro m pas t interactions Severa l of thes e factor s ma y b e occurrin g a t th e sam e time , s o tha t w e ar e no t sur e wha t th e rea l proble m is Thus , definin g conflic t i n a specifi c situatio n ca n b e a difficul t task
Becaus e conflic t i s complex , definition s ten d t o focu s o n a combinatio n of man y factors , suc h a s th e circumstance s tha t lea d u p t o a conflic t o r th e behavior s of disputant s tha t produc e perception s of disagreement . Som e wh o vie w conflic t loo k fro m th e perspectiv e of episodes , wher e discussio n focuse s o n specific beginning s an d ending s of dispute s (Cupac h & Canary , 1997). Box 1.2 provide s example s fro m th e man y definition s of conflict .
Theoretica l Perspective s
A variet y of theoretica l perspective s attemp t t o explai n th e dynamic s of conflict
Theorie s hel p u s t o ge t t o th e underlyin g factors , th e "whys " an d "whats " tha t fue l an d sustai n disputes The y provid e insigh t abou t th e issue s tha t nee d attentio n if w e ar e t o b e abl e t o achiev e resolution Eac h approac h reveal s assumption s abou t th e importanc e of interna l o r externa l forces , behavior s tha t trigge r o r sustai n interactions , o r th e impac t of competin g goal s o r interests .
BOX 1.1
Food Fight
A disput e between tw o co-workers last week resulted in an assault complaint and a Denver police investigation The weapon? A carrot, accordin g t o the police report
The victim alleges that her assailant at th e Fresh Vegetable Package Company in northwest Denver hurled a barrage of fruit at her for "laughin g at her." The conflict escalated t o vegetables, and her attacker, "for no reason," hurled a 4-inch-diameter carrot at her The victim , wh o is 5 months pregnant, complaine d of stomach pains an d was taken t o Denver General Hospital. The detective reported , "All she wants is that th e suspect leave her alone I'm goin g t o call up and talk t o th e supervisor and have the assailant moved fro m the dangerous weapo n section , back fro m vegetables t o fruits." The Denver district attorney's office refused t o file charges Assault wit h a deadly vegetable apparently woul d not sit well with a jury
BOX 1.2 Definitions of Conflict
A conflict exists because of a real or apparent incompatibility of parties needs or interests (Bush & Folger, 1994, p 56)
Conflict occurs whe n tw o people cannot agree on the actions that one perso n takes or that he or she doesn' t want the other t o take (Edelman & Crain, 1993, p 18)
Conflict means perceived divergence of interests, or a belief that th e parties current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously. (Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994, p 5)
Conflict involves a struggle over values and claims t o scarce status, power an d resources in whic h th e aim of opponents is t o neutralize, injure, or eliminate rivals (Coser, 1967, p 8)
Conflict is an intermediate stage of a spectrum of struggle that escalates and becomes more destructive: differences, disagreement, dispute (conflict), campaign , litigation, and fight or war (Keltner, 1987, pp 1-2)
Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least tw o interdependent parties wh o perceive incompatible goals , scarce resources and interference fro m th e other party in achieving their goals. (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991 , p. 23)
Th e perspectiv e w e choos e wil l affect th e claim s an d conclusion s w e mak e abou t conflict I n addition , th e theoretica l perspectiv e w e us e wil l influenc e ou r choic e of strategy Fo r example , a consultan t ma y recommen d psychotherap y for a trouble d employe e if th e consultan t believe s tha t th e conflic t i s generate d
b y persona l problems Bu t if th e employee' s proble m seem s t o b e create d b y lac k of suppor t i n th e department , th e focu s ma y b e o n th e interactiona l dynamic s of staff Th e followin g sectio n describe s a fe w of th e theorie s value d mos t b y practitioner s t o explai n th e dynamic s of conflict
Attribution Theory
Grounde d i n th e wor k of scholar s suc h a s Heide r (1958), Jone s an d Nesbit t (1971), Ros s (1977), an d Sillar s (1980), th e attributio n perspectiv e propose s tha t peopl e mak e sens e of thei r worl d b y assignin g qualitie s an d cause s t o peopl e an d situation s base d o n wha t i s mos t relevan t t o them . Attribution s ar e explanation s tha t peopl e hav e for th e caus e of events Fo r example , base d o n experience s i n childhoo d wit h hi s mother , a husban d ma y conclud e tha t hi s wif e i s to o possessive So , h e interpret s request s fro m hi s wif e a s attempt s t o furthe r limi t hi s freedom .
Fincham , Bradbury , an d Scot t (1990) describ e si x dimension s of attribution s tha t peopl e make :
3 Blameworthiness—assigns responsibility for failure
(3 Globality—cause of problem seen as narrow and specific to situation or wid e an d explains man y situations
3 Intent—belief that conscious decision or plannin g wa s involved
13 Locus—assumptions about where the problem lies
3 Selfishness—belief that motives are self-serving
3 Stability—belief that this is a one-time occurrence or will occur many times
Researc h fro m thi s perspectiv e ha s produce d a wealt h of informatio n abou t attributiona l bias , whic h explain s man y of th e behavior s tha t occu r i n conflic t situations Fo r example , Bradle y (1978) foun d tha t peopl e frequentl y attribut e positiv e consequence s t o thei r ow n action s an d negativ e consequence s t o th e action s of others Sillar s an d Scot t (1983) looke d a t intimat e relationship s (friends , family ) an d foun d tha t partner s develo p overgeneralize d label s t o explai n th e behavior s of other s an d assig n blam e base d o n negativ e personalit y trait s tha t the y perceiv e i n others . I n addition , the y foun d tha t attributiona l bia s occurre d mos t widel y durin g emotionall y expressiv e conflicts , durin g highl y stressfu l interactions , an d wher e attitude s ar e dissimilar Finally , Thoma s an d Pond y (1977) foun d tha t whe n peopl e engag e i n conflict , the y frequentl y characteriz e thei r ow n tactic s a s cooperativ e an d th e tactic s of other s a s uncooperative .
To deescalat e conflict , disputant s nee d t o expos e misperception s create d b y inaccurat e attributions . The y nee d t o uncove r th e " I jus t assumed " judgment s tha t creat e barrier s t o resolutio n of problems . An d t o reduc e polarization , the y nee d t o reduc e blaming , se e ho w eac h part y ha s contribute d t o escalatio n of th e problem , an d accep t responsibilit y for resolution
Equity Theory
Scholar s suc h a s Homan s (1958), Bla u (1964), an d Walster , Walster , an d Berschei d (1978) vie w conflic t fro m th e perspectiv e of distributiv e justice . Peopl e becom e distressed , frustrated , an d angr y whe n the y perceiv e tha t the y ar e no t receivin g fai r distributio n of somethin g the y value . Muldoo n (1996) explains , "Eac h of u s ha s a n interna l mora l gyroscop e tha t keep s u s i n balanc e wit h th e outsid e world It become s distorte d whe n w e feel tha t other s ar e benefitin g a t ou r expens e o r whe n w e ar e unfairl y benefitin g a t someon e else' s expense " (p 83) . Roloff (1981) define s a n equitabl e relationshi p "a s on e i n whic h som e perso n (a participan t i n th e exchang e o r outsid e observer ) perceive s tha t th e relativ e gain s of tw o peopl e i n a n exchang e ar e equal " (p . 57). Societa l o r organizationa l norm s defin e ou r understandin g of wha t relativ e gai n ma y mean Wha t migh t hav e bee n perceive d a s fai r o r equitabl e a centur y ag o migh t b e perceive d a s exploitatio n today Roloff point s ou t tha t perception s of equit y chang e a s w e lear n mor e abou t peopl e o r situations , a s event s alte r role s o r responsibilities , a s peopl e developmentall y change , o r a s w e valu e th e benefit s of a relationshi p wit h ne w criteria . So , perception s of inequit y o r imbalanc e chang e a s peopl e an d situation s change
Restorin g equit y ma y involv e on e of man y tactics : (a) raisin g awarenes s of har m s o tha t partie s ma y correc t th e injustice , (b) restorin g a psychologica l balanc e b y gettin g th e perso n doin g th e har m t o apologize , (c) creatin g a sens e of fairnes s b y findin g way s t o compensat e th e perso n harmed , o r (d ) discussin g th e rule s o r norm s tha t guid e ho w resource s ar e divided .
Field Theory
Base d o n th e wor k of Kur t Lewi n (1951), thi s perspectiv e view s people' s action s a s a produc t of contextua l forces Lewi n stresse d tha t thes e force s ar e see n i n impulse s t o d o somethin g an d impulse s no t t o d o othe r things Ther e i s a pus h an d a pul l base d o n expectations , commitments , an d loyalties . Eac h context , suc h a s family , communit y group , o r wor k setting , serve s a s a psychologica l fiel d wher e antagonisti c interest s o r competin g attitude s creat e saf e o r hostil e climates Fro m thi s perspective , Heitle r (1990) define s conflic t a s " a situatio n i n whic h seemingl y incompatibl e element s exer t force i n opposin g o r divergen t directions Thes e divergen t force s evok e tension " (p 5)
Thi s approac h explain s wh y a perso n ma y b e passiv e i n th e presenc e of famil y an d ye t highl y aggressiv e i n a wor k setting . Differen t force s motivat e o r inhibi t behaviors . Fiel d theor y explain s wh y someone , regarde d a s cooperativ e b y friends , become s competitiv e i n a n unsaf e wor k climate Competitivenes s serve s a s a tacti c t o comba t th e perceive d threat s a t work
Conflic t managemen t fro m thi s perspectiv e ma y begi n b y identifyin g systemi c force s tha t affect organizations . Disputant s ma y b e helpe d t o se e tha t thei r
co-worker s ar e no t th e enemy ; th e enemie s ar e th e force s creatin g th e condition s for conflict . Fo r example , i n on e school , th e staff blame d eac h othe r for a breakdow n of schoo l discipline . A consultan t identifie d change s i n schoo l distric t policie s tha t mad e enforcemen t of rule s mor e difficult . Th e staff discusse d ho w the y coul d strategicall y mee t th e expectation s of th e distric t instea d of engagin g i n conflic t wit h eac h othe r ove r th e changes .
Interactional Theory
Man y writer s hav e suggeste d tha t "al l life i s a drama. " Thi s orientatio n parallel s th e interactiona l perspective . Th e meanin g w e us e t o guid e ou r behavio r arise s ou t of ou r interactio n wit h others Influence d b y th e writing s of Willia m James , Joh n Dewey , Georg e Mead , an d Ansel m Strauss , interactionalist s vie w conflic t a s a proces s of ongoin g negotiatio n abou t wha t i s valued , ho w behavior s ar e t o b e interpreted , an d th e meanin g of events . Folger , Poole , an d Stutma n (1993) explain , "Peopl e creat e th e situation s the y perceive , [and ] wha t the y perceiv e i s als o influence d b y wha t the y do " (p . 47) . Straus s (1978) view s eac h negotiatio n a s large r tha n th e specifi c contex t i n whic h i t occurs I t i s a fundamenta l proces s wher e cultur e i s formed , refined , an d remade
Applicatio n of thi s perspectiv e i s no t difficul t t o appl y i n man y kind s of conflict. Fo r example , i n families , negotiatio n ove r a specifi c proble m influence s a serie s of continua l change s i n role , expectations , an d authority . I n a n organization , eac h staff negotiatio n ove r ho w wor k shoul d b e don e create s additiona l understanding s abou t role s an d expectations I n negotiation , a smal l concessio n ma y serv e a s a trust-buildin g measure , reflectin g th e interactionalist' s vie w tha t behavio r ca n influenc e perceptions Similarly , lookin g for "agreement s i n principle " shape s a perceptio n of progres s tha t ma y influenc e futur e behaviors . Interaction s influenc e perceptions .
Phase Theory
Cupac h an d Canar y (1997) defin e th e phas e mode l of conflic t a s describin g "th e sequence s of behavior s tha t interacfant s displa y a s conflic t unfold s ove r time " (p . 152). Fo r example , Rumme l (1976) describe s th e developmen t of conflict a s passin g throug h predictabl e phases : attitude s an d objective s {latent phase) becom e triggere d {initiation) b y a n event ; forc e an d threat s ar e use d {attempt to balance power) a s partie s confron t th e issue ; partie s ma y reac h a leve l of resolutio n {balance of power) unti l anothe r even t trigger s furthe r confrontatio n {disruption).
Walto n (1969) characterize s conflic t i n jus t tw o phases : differentiation , wher e partie s rais e th e conflic t issue , clarif y positions , an d discus s reason s behin d th e position ; an d integration , wher e partie s engag e i n proble m solving .
Cupac h an d Canar y (1997) poin t ou t tha t i n orde r t o manag e conflic t i n tw o phases , th e partie s mus t b e abl e t o defin e th e proble m i n mutuall y understoo d
term s durin g th e differentiatio n phase , an d the y mus t displa y cooperativ e tactic s durin g th e integratio n phase .
Althoug h scholar s ma y differ o n th e name s an d number s of phase s of conflict, the y agre e o n man y aspect s of th e phases :
3 Conflict proceeds throug h a predictable sequence of behaviors. 13 Behaviors that ignite confrontation can be identified a Specific behaviors tend to perpetuat e the continuation or escalation of conflict.
Organizationa l consultant s us e thi s perspectiv e whe n the y as k abou t th e serie s of event s tha t le d u p t o th e conflic t o r as k abou t th e behavior s tha t escalate d th e conflict . Managin g o r resolvin g th e conflic t ma y involv e helpin g partie s identif y th e behavior s tha t trigge r th e conflict , establishin g a monitorin g syste m t o war n partie s whe n th e curren t cours e of actio n i s unproductive , o r creatin g ne w discussio n procedure s t o preven t conflic t escalation
Psychodynamic Theory
Psychologist s suc h a s Freu d (1925), Adle r (1927), Erickso n (1950), an d Hal l (1979) explai n tha t peopl e approac h problem s fro m on e of man y interna l unconsciou s states , suc h a s anxiety , ego , fear, aggressiveness , o r guilt Thes e state s influenc e people' s perceptio n of choice s availabl e t o them I n addition , unconsciou s state s shap e judgment s abou t thei r ow n behavio r an d assumption s abou t th e motivation s of others . Interna l tension s an d pressure s buil d u p t o a poin t wher e the y deman d release , ofte n i n destructiv e ways .
A phenomeno n calle d displacement occur s whe n partie s wh o ar e unabl e t o direc t thei r ange r towar d th e sourc e of thei r frustratio n (th e boss) , direc t i t instea d towar d a mor e accessibl e targe t (coworke r o r famil y member) . Fo r example , a husband , frustrate d wit h th e directio n of hi s career , ma y displac e th e frustratio n b y complainin g abou t hi s wife
Base d o n a psychodynami c perspective , Hilgar d an d Bowe r (1966) explai n ho w disputant s wil l engag e i n compulsiv e o r repetitiv e destructiv e conflic t behavior s despit e thei r awarenes s abou t ho w counterproductiv e thei r action s are . Unconsciou s interna l drive s caus e peopl e t o d o wha t the y kno w migh t har m them Despit e th e fac t tha t worker s ma y los e thei r job s if the y argu e wit h thei r manager , the y se e n o othe r choic e for cours e of action Despit e los s of reputation , a communit y membe r ma y explod e i n ange r a t a publi c meetin g becaus e "the y ha d i t coming. "
Practitioner s wh o vie w conflic t fro m thi s perspectiv e wil l ofte n tr y t o redirec t destructiv e energie s (aggression ) int o constructiv e outlets . Conflic t manager s ma y attemp t t o hel p partie s gai n insigh t abou t ho w thei r behavior s contribut e t o th e proble m o r abou t ho w thei r feeling s ma y no t accuratel y reflec t events .
The y ma y recommen d therap y for worker s wit h persona l problem s wh o displac e th e targe t of th e problems
Social Exchange Theory
Homan s (1958), Thibau t an d Kelle y (1959), an d Bla u (1964) propose d tha t w e vie w conflic t fro m th e perspectiv e of marke t analysis The y argu e tha t peopl e mak e choice s base d o n self-interest ; durin g interactions , the y weig h th e reward s an d cost s of specifi c course s of action Roloff (1981) point s ou t tha t conflict emerge s whe n peopl e perceiv e tha t thei r reward s ar e to o low , thei r cost s ar e to o high , o r the y anticipat e resistanc e if the y attemp t t o reac h thei r goals . Fo r example , a spous e ma y tolerat e verba l abus e unti l th e childre n ar e grown . Th e emotiona l cos t i s wort h preservatio n of th e family Bu t onc e th e childre n leav e home , th e cost s ar e deeme d to o high , an d a separatio n o r divorc e follows
Conflic t fro m thi s perspectiv e involve s identifyin g th e need s an d value s of eac h part y t o creat e a satisfyin g se t of trade-offs I n th e abov e example , th e abusin g spous e wil l nee d t o reduc e th e verba l aggressio n t o mak e th e relationshi p a n emotionall y cost-effectiv e investmen t for th e othe r spouse . Scholar s suc h a s Marwel l an d Schmit t (1967), Miller , Boster , Roloff, an d Seibol d (1977), an d Roloff (1976) identif y man y tactic s designe d t o influenc e th e exchang e of resources : promises , threats , revenge , arguing , physica l aggression , forgiveness , pleading , insulting , pouting , an d crying Manager s of conflic t migh t attemp t t o reduc e th e frequenc y of destructiv e tactic s whil e creatin g a se t of trade-off s wher e al l partie s achiev e thei r goals .
Systems Theory
Base d o n element s fro m interactiona l an d fiel d theories , th e system s perspectiv e view s families , groups , an d organization s a s unit s of interrelate d part s wh o influenc e eac h othe r an d functio n withi n a large r environment . System s pionee r Ludwi g vo n Bertalanff y (1955) pointe d ou t tha t group s posses s organizatio n muc h lik e biologica l organisms . Group s demonstrat e qualitie s of wholeness , directiveness , an d differentiation Lik e biologica l organisms , system s ca n b e characterize d a s open or closed base d o n responsivenes s t o informatio n externa l t o th e system The y ar e homeostatic i n tha t partie s wil l adjus t thei r communicatio n t o achiev e o r maintai n equilibrium . Member s of system s ar e interdependent , s o muc h s o tha t the y ma y influenc e eac h othe r simultaneously . An d system s ca n b e characterize d b y nonsummativity, tha t is , th e whol e i s greate r tha n th e su m of it s parts
Cupac h an d Canar y (1997) describ e thre e categorie s of syste m breakdown Th e firs t i s transactiona l redundancy , wher e peopl e perpetuat e conflic t b y engagin g i n th e same , unchangin g pattern s of interaction . Peopl e withi n th e syste m ar e eithe r unabl e t o se e th e ineffectivenes s of th e pattern s o r unwillin g t o chang e th e patterns . A secon d caus e of syste m breakdow n i s whe n on e par t of th e system , a subsystem , become s ineffective Th e lac k of cooperatio n o r failur e of a subsyste m make s i t mor e difficul t for th e syste m t o achiev e it s goals A thir d
caus e involve s member s exceedin g thei r roles Whe n someon e exceed s expectation s o r powe r i n hi s o r he r role , imbalance s occu r elsewhere .
Sociologist s Talcot t Parsons , Rober t Merton , an d Emil e Durkhei m us e system s concept s t o describ e th e impac t of conflic t o n th e healt h o r effectivenes s of a group The y describ e a stable , functiona l syste m a s on e wher e eac h of th e member s fits harmoniousl y int o th e large r whole Dysfunctio n occur s whe n peopl e disrup t th e otherwis e stabl e system Fo r example , a famil y ma y no t experienc e a grea t dea l of significan t conflic t a s th e childre n gro w durin g th e firs t 10 o r 12 years . Bu t a s th e childre n ente r thei r tee n years , the y ma y deman d mor e autonomy , a greate r shar e of th e resources , o r mor e sa y i n decisio n making . Th e stabl e syste m become s disrupte d b y change s i n expectations
Th e professiona l wh o approache s conflic t fro m a system s perspectiv e look s for th e behavior s tha t disrup t th e group' s norma l harmony Question s migh t b e asked , suc h a s "Wha t i s differen t no w fro m 6 month s o r a yea r ago? " Second , althoug h on e membe r ma y b e single d ou t a s th e caus e of problems , th e professiona l look s for issue s tha t migh t b e causin g th e member' s deviance , suc h a s leadership , roles , an d rewards . Th e proble m perso n ma y b e onl y a sympto m of deeper , systemi c issues Third , a n outside r wil l fin d i t difficul t t o understan d wha t i s functiona l o r nonfunctiona l for a grou p unles s h e o r sh e i s abl e t o se e th e grou p workin g together
Transformational Theory
Transformationa l scholar s focu s mor e o n chang e an d proces s tha n o n explanation s abou t wh y conflic t occurs Thei r perspectiv e attempt s t o accoun t for th e dynamic , changin g qualit y of roles , relationships , an d expectation s an d th e shiftin g environmen t i n whic h the y exist . Th e emphasi s i s o n process .
Fo r example , Northru p (1989) point s ou t tha t conflic t goe s throug h stages , an d eac h of th e stage s ma y requir e differen t strategies . Wallenstei n (1991) argue s tha t solution s ma y no t actuall y represen t resolution . Resolutio n of conflic t i n man y setting s ma y actuall y perpetuat e th e inequalit y o r injustice s tha t exist .
Thus , wherea s othe r theorie s vie w conflic t a s dysfunctiona l an d unhealthy , thi s perspectiv e view s conflic t a s a vita l socia l functio n wher e tension s ar e release d an d ne w communa l norm s ar e establishe d o r refined A s Cose r (1957) explains , "Conflic t no t onl y generate s ne w norms , ne w institution s i t ma y b e sai d t o b e stimulatin g directl y i n th e economi c an d technolog y realm " (p . 198).
Fro m th e transformationa l perspective , conflic t i s th e tensio n betwee n wha t i s an d wha t peopl e believ e ough t t o be . Conflic t force s partie s t o dea l wit h deepe r issue s an d thu s serv e a s a constructiv e socia l process Fo r example , tension s betwee n labo r union s an d managemen t frequentl y facilitat e highe r wage s o r bette r workin g condition s for workers Politica l debat e betwee n Republican s an d Democrat s ma y generat e ne w policie s o r value s tha t influenc e polic y choices .
Thi s perspectiv e serve s a s th e foundatio n for transformationa l mediation , wher e th e goa l i s t o mov e beyon d solution s t o transformin g relationships . Th e transformationa l mediato r attempt s t o influenc e interactio n patterns , chang e ho w th e partner s tal k abou t themselve s an d eac h other , an d provid e opportunitie s "t o strengthe n bot h thei r sens e of ho w t o wor k o n life' s problem s an d thei r abilit y t o relat e t o others " (Bus h & Folger , 1994, p 135) Transformatio n occur s whe n peopl e alte r perception s abou t themselve s an d other s o r chang e th e wa y the y relate . Bus h an d Folge r (1994) summariz e th e valu e of thi s approach :
The strongest reason for believing tha t the Transformational Story shoul d guid e mediatio n is th e story' s underlyin g premise: that the goal of transformation—that is, engenderin g moral growt h towar d bot h strengt h an d compassion—should take precedence over th e other goals mediatio n can be used to obtain, even thoug h these other goals are themselves important , (pp 28-29)
Box 1.3 provide s a cas e stud y i n whic h attributio n an d interactio n theorie s migh t b e usefu l for explainin g th e dynamic s of a conflict . Althoug h Harrie t ha d bee n gon e for 20 years , Willar d an d Emm a wer e read y t o resum e a longtim e move-countermov e feu d wit h Harriet' s family Al l partie s attribute d negativ e intention s t o th e action s of th e others Resolution , althoug h difficult , woul d involv e breakin g 30 year s of patterne d interaction s betwee n th e familie s an d creatin g a mor e productiv e se t of attributions .
Base d o n th e theoretica l perspective s provide d earlier , Harriet' s conflic t coul d b e describe d i n othe r way s a s well . Perhap s bot h Harrie t an d Emm a use d th e assisted-livin g facilit y a s a n opportunit y t o expres s thei r nee d for power , o r escalatio n of th e problem s ma y b e a functio n of ineffectiv e conflic t styles Ho w w e defin e conflic t become s a n extensio n of thes e theoretica l perspectives .
Summar y of Theoretica l Perspective s Gi
Conflic t ca n b e viewe d fro m a variet y of perspectives , a s evidence d i n th e previou s discussion . Focu s ca n b e place d o n th e individual' s contribution s t o conflict , a s w e fin d i n th e attributio n an d psychodynami c perspectives . We ca n explor e th e escalatio n of conflic t throug h th e interactio n of partie s o r throug h it s developmen t throug h phases We ca n explai n behavior s base d o n ho w partie s addres s thei r self-interest s i n trade-off s o r ho w the y perceiv e th e fairnes s of thei r treatmen t durin g discussions . Or , w e ca n ste p bac k an d vie w conflic t i n term s of th e functionin g of th e grou p o r organization Th e las t of th e theories , th e transformationa l perspective , focuse s mor e o n managin g conflic t tha n i t doe s o n explanation s of cause . It s rol e wil l b e see n mor e clearl y late r whe n w e discus s th e goal s for negotiation , mediation , o r facilitation . Althoug h ther e ar e man y difference s i n th e theoretica l perspectives , ther e ar e principle s the y shar e i n common :
