CONFLICT-RESOLUTION STRATEGIES

B R Siwal
Deputy Director
NIPCCD, NEW DELHI
Emal:[email protected]

Conflict is a daily reality for everyone. Whether at home or at work, an

individual’s needs and values constantly and invariably come into opposition with those
of other people. Some conflicts are relatively minor, easy to handle, or capable of being
overlooked. Others of greater magnitude, however, require a strategy for successful
resolution if they are not to create constant tension or lasting enmity in home or business.

The ability to resolve conflict successfully is probably one of the most important
social skills that an individual-and particularly a member of a work team-can possess.
Yet there are few formal opportunities in our society to learn it. Like any other human
skill, conflict resolution can be taught; like other skills, it consists of a number of
important sub skills each separate and all interdependent. These skills need to be
assimilated at the cognitive level (by developing an understanding of how conflict can be
resolved) as well as at the behavioral level (by developing the ability to resolve specific
conflicts).

RESPONSES TO CONFLICT SITUATIONS:

Children develop their own personal strategies for dealing with conflict. Even if
these preferred approaches do not resolve conflicts successfully, they continue to be used
because of a lack of awareness of alternatives. Conflict-resolution strategies may be
classified into three major categories-avoidance, defusion, and confrontation. Figure
illustrates that avoidance is at one extreme and confrontation is at the other.
Avoidance Defusion Confrontation

Competition Compromise Negotiation

Figure: A Continuum of Responses to Conflict Situations

Avoidance:

Some people attempt to avoid conflict situations altogether or to avoid certain

types of conflict. These people tend to repress emotional reactions, look the other way,
or leave the situation entirely. When they choose to avoid conflicts, it is either because
they cannot face up to certain situations effectively or because they do not have the skills
to negotiate them effectively. Although avoidance strategies do have value for example,
when survival is the issue and escape is possible they may leave an individual feeling
dissatisfied, facing doubts and fears about meeting the same type of situation in the
future.

A. Defusion:

This tactic is essentially a delaying action. Defusion strategies are used to “cool
off” the situation, at least temporarily, or to keep the issues so unclear that attempts at
confrontation are improbable. Resolving minor points while avoiding or delaying
discussion of the major problem, postponing a confrontation until a more auspicious time,
and avoiding clarification of the salient issues underlying the conflict are examples of
defusion. Often the person who seeks to defuse a conflict wishes to accommodate to
meet the needs of the other people involved at the expense of his or her own needs.
Defusion works when delay is possible or desirable, such as when two people are too
angry to discuss a problem effectively and agree to resolve that problem at a specific later
time. However, if those people then fail to discuss the problem later, they may end up
with feelings of dissatisfaction, anxiety about the future of their relationship, and doubts
about themselves.

Confrontation:

The third major strategy involves an actual confrontation of conflicting issues or

person. Confrontation can further be subdivided into competition, compromise, and
negotiation.
Competition indicates a desire to meet one’s own needs and a lack of concern for
the needs of the others involved. The competitor uses some form of power, persuasion,
or coercion. Competitive strategies include the use of physical force (a punch in the
nose, war); bribery (money, favors); and punishment (withholding love, money, job
promotions. Such tactics are often very effective from the point of view of the
“successful” party in the conflict: that person wins; the others who are involved lost.
Unfortunately, however, for the losers the real conflict may have only just begun.
Hostility, anxiety, and actual physical damage are the by-products of these “win-lose”
power tactics.

Compromise reflects a desire to find a resolution that will partially meet the needs
of everyone involved. The individual who seeks a compromise expects the outcome to
be mutually acceptable and somewhat satisfying to all of the parties, he or she also
expects to give up something for the sake of achieving a resolution that everyone can live
with.

Negotiation is based on a desire to meet the needs of all people involved in a

conflict. With negotiation strategies, everyone can win. The negotiator works to see that
everyone’s needs are acknowledged as important, that several possible resolutions and
their consequences are identified, and that the alternative that meets each party’s goals in
chosen and implemented. Because of its “win-win” emphasis, negotiation has the
potential to provide the most positive and the least negative by products of all conflict-
resolution strategies.

2
NEGOTIATION SKILLS:

Successful negotiation requires a set of skills that must be learned and practiced.
These skills include (1) the ability to determine the nature of (to diagnose) the conflict,
(2) effectiveness in initiating confrontations, (3) the ability to hear the other’s point of
view and (4) the use of problem-solving processes to bring about a consensus decision.
Diagnosing the nature of a conflict is the starting point in any attempt at resolution
through negotiation. The most important issue that must be decided is whether the
conflict is an ideological (value) conflict or a “real” (tangible) conflict or a combination
of both. Value conflicts are exceedingly difficult to negotiate. If, for example, I believe
that people’s jobs should come first in their lives and that whatever personal sacrifices
they make for the sake of their jobs are entirely appropriate, whereas you believe that
people’s personal lives should come first and that no personal sacrifices are appropriate
for the sake of jobs, it would be very difficult for us to come to a position on this issue
that would satisfy us both.

A difference of values, however, is really significant only when the opposing

views affect people in some real or tangible way. For example, if a manager believes that
work should come first and one of that manager’s subordinates believes that one’s
personal life come first, then there is a negotiable conflict. If both the manager and the
subordinate stand on their individual principles-maintaining their value conflict they
probably will make little headway. But if, instead, they both concentrate on the “real”
problem the tangible effect, which concern the use of the subordinate’s time they may be
able to devise a realistic, mutually acceptable resolution that does not require either of
them to change his or her values. For example, the manager may agree to honor the
subordinate’s decision to refuse all overtime work, and the subordinate may agree to
make or receive personal phone calls at work only in the case of an emergency. The
solution illustrates that the ideological differences do not need to be resolved; instead, the
tangible element has been shown to be amenable to a negotiated settlement.

It is important to determine whether a conflict is a real or a value conflict. If it is

a conflict in values resulting in intangible effects on either party, then it is best tolerate.
If, however, a tangible effect exists, that element of the conflict should be resolved.

INITIATING:

A second skill necessary to conflict resolution is effectiveness in initiating a

confrontation. It is important not to begin by attacking or demeaning the other party or
parties involved. A defensive reaction on the part of one or more parties usually blocks a
quick resolution of differences. The individual who confronts another party does so
effectively by stating the tangible effects that the conflict has on him or her.

3
LISTENING:

After the confrontation has been initiated, a confronter must be capable of hearing
the other point(s) of view. If the initial statement made by another person involved is not
what the confronter was hoping to hear, a defensive rebuttal, a “hard-line” approach, or
an explanation often follows. Argument provoking replies should be avoided.
Confronters should not attempt to defend themselves, explain their positions, or make
demands or threats. Instead, they must be able to engage in the skill active listening.
They should listen and reflect and paraphrase or clarify the other person’s stand. When
confronters have interpreted the opposition’s position to the satisfaction of the other
persons, they should again present their own points of view, being careful to avoid value
statements and to concentrate on tangible outcomes. Usually, when confronters listen to
the other person, that person lowers his or her defenses and is, in turn, more ready to hear
another point of view. Of course, if both persons are skilled in active listening, the
chances of successful negotiation are much enhanced.

PROBLEM SOLVING:

The final skill necessary to successful negotiation is the use of the problem
solving process to negotiate a consensus decision. The steps in the process that follows
are simply stated and easy to apply:
(i) Clarifying the problem. What is the tangible? Where does each party
stand on the issue?
(ii) Define the problem in specific terms.
(iii) Determine goals to be made in solving the problems.
(iv) Generate alternative solutions.
(v) Generating and evaluating a number of possible solutions. Often these
two sub steps should be done separately.
(vi) Select the most viable solution.
(vii) Develop an action plan for implementing the chosen solution: identify
who will do what, when and how.
(viii) Implement the solution.

CONFLICT AS A POSITIVE FORCE:

Reaching consensus on a solution to a shared problem is a major goal of problem
solving discussions. Before a team can achieve consensus, however, the views of
different members must be heard, given fair consideration, and critically evaluated.
Conflict or disagreement is a natural and essential part of this process. The very idea of
discussion, in fact, presupposes the existence of differing viewpoints regarding the “best”
method of resolving a common problem or concern.

Although many textbooks have drawn a distinction between argumentation

(which is claimed to be appropriate for public speaking) and cooperative, reflective talk
(which is associated with problem solving discussions), such a separation is misleading.
Argumentation in discussion in important, indeed essential. Sound decisions, the goal of

4
problem solving discussions, depend on an atmosphere that is conducive to the
expression of differing opinions, to the rigorous scrutiny of evidence and implications,
and to the thorough consideration of all possible alternative courses of action. A team
should encourage these activities, which include disagreements, in order to increase its
chances of making sound and well considered decisions. If a team discourages these
activities and muffles disagreement, it is more likely to make superficial or unwise
decisions.
Most decisions must be made under uncertain conditions. Relevant information
may be unavailable; knowledge about future consequences or implications of the problem
and its possible solutions may be, at best, speculative. Making decisions under these
conditions is difficult. However, it is possible to increase the probability of making
sound choices by realizing that good decisions must grow out of the clash and conflict of
divergent ideas and out of the serious consideration of differing alternatives.

The traditional dictum for reflective cooperative talk is, of course, useful, but to
role out the argumentative aspects of discussion is to deny the intensity of deliberation
that is necessary for sound decision making.

OUTGROWTHS OF CONFLICT:
The following three noteworthy reasons exists for encouraging conflict in
problem solving discussions:
(i) By entertaining diverse ideas and perspectives, team members can gain a
broadened understanding of the nature of the problem and its implications.
(ii) By encouraging the expression of different ideas, a team has potentially
more alternatives from which to select a final solution.
(iii) The excitement that comes front conflicting ideas stimulates healthy
interaction and involvement with the team’s task.

The first two reasons affect the team product decisions; the third reason affects the
team process.

A BROADENED UNDERSTANDING:
In a problem solving discussion the first objective is to agree on the problem or
concern that prompted the team meeting. Although many people assume that this is a
simple matter, it is a significant phase in the process of decision making. Superficial
attention to this first phase often leads to backtracking later or to conclusions that are
based on an inaccurate assessment of the problem and that do not address the real
problem.
Thus, in the process of determining the problem, conflict should be urged. It
allows for differing perceptions and opinions and, thus, results in a broadened perspective
on the problem. Walter and Scott (1973) strongly advocate disagreement during the
initial stage of problem solving:

Disagreement is a prerequisite for purposive discussion, and it may often

contribute important junctures during discussion from which the participants can
build toward better understanding of problems….Disagreements represent various

5
 interpretations to weigh and choose; potentially, therefore, they provide profitable
inquiries to pursue.

Only when diverse ideas are encouraged can the team hope to achieve the
maximally broad understanding of its problem, and this is fundamental to the remainder
of the problem solving process.

INCREASED ALTERNATIVES:

A second reason for encouraging conflict in discussion perhaps the most

recognized and accepted rationale is that through disagreements team members can
develop more possible solutions from which to make a final selection. Premature
commitment to a solution without adequate awareness or consideration of alternative
possibilities is all too frequent it characterized the national fiascos mentioned at the
beginning of the article. A team whose norm precludes disagreement is not likely to have
an array of possible solutions from which to select. In this case the team’s decision or
solution is not one that grows out of serious and open minded deliberation; rather, it is a
careless gamble resulting from superficial discussion. Peter Drucker (1973), who has
studied decision making in organizations, maintains that one of the most important
functions of disagreement is that it alone can provide alternatives to a decision, and
alternatives are necessary for anything other than rash decision making. When a team
does not have alternatives, it cannot make a reasoned decision; instead, it simply ratifies
the only ideas that has been allowed to surface. Sound decisions grow out of the
consideration earnest, reflective consideration of alternatives, and this may occur only
when disagreement and conflict are accepted as a constructive part of the discussion
process.

MEMBERS INTERACTION AND INVOLVEMENT:

The final reason for advocating conflict in discussions is that it serves to stimulate
members interest in the team and the shared problem. Conflict implies vigorous
interaction over ideas, and this increases team members involvement with the task and
enhances the process of decision making. A frequently cited value of discussion as a
means of making decisions is that it allows for greater creativity in considering and
solving problems. This value, however, rests on the assumption that various opinions and
values will be invited and seriously considered by all team members so that creative
combinations of ideas may occur. Healthy, noncombative disagreement provide a free
and open atmosphere for discussion; therefore, members creative energies are loosed for
the good of the process. Extensive observation of organizational decision making teams
has led Hoffman, Harburg, and Maier (1962) to conclude that conflict results in more
creative thinking, greater member commitment to a decision, and a higher quality
decision. Creativity seems to thrive on constructive conflict.

Thus, it should be clear that conflict is not to be avoided in discussions. On the

contrary, it seems to be a positive force that can enhance both the process and products of
problem solving discussion.

6
MANAGING CONFLICT EFFECTIVELY:

Despite the fact that conflict has some significant values for discussion, everyday
experience also shows that conflict can be dangerous it can destroy a team lead to
stalemates rather than decisions, and cause major interpersonal hostilities. Whether
conflict enhances or subverts discussion depends on how the conflict is managed. There
are both ineffective and effective methods of dealing with it.
Disruptive Conflict:

Distributive or disruptive conflict occurs when team members do not understand

the value of conflict and do not have or do not use constructive means of channeling it
into deliberations. In a distributive situation there is a competitive climate; members
perceive the disagreement as a game in which some will win and other must lose. There
is not integration toward a common goal, no sense of team spirit in which all ideas belong
to all team members. “Getting my own way” is more important than finding the best
understanding of the solution for the team’s common problem. In distributive situations
members tend to employ such defense mechanisms as aggression, withdrawal, repression,
or projection of blame into others. Members also tend to become locked into their own
viewpoints and are unwilling even to consider the possible value of others’ ideas.
Frequently, in distributive situations, members will resort to personal attacks instead of
focusing their disagreement on the issues.

In this type of situation there are naturally come undesirable effects. The team
may form cliques or subgroups. Members will be less likely to understand (or even to try
to understand) one another’s motives and opinions because hostility and distrust are high.
When disruptive conflict penetrates discussion, it may be impossible to reach any
decision because the team becomes deadlocked and no member is willing to shift
position. Even if the team does manage to reach a decision, member will seldom be
satisfied with it. Distributive conflict, then, is negative in its nature and its effects: it is
the kind of conflict that should be avoided since it leads to nothing constructive in the
process or products of discussion.

Constructive Conflict:

By contrast, integrative or constructive conflict develops when team members

understand the utility of disagreement and when they have acquired methods of managing
conflict effectively. In integrative situations there is high team spirit and commitment to
team goals. Members assume that their disagreements stem from sincere involvement
with the common problem and that by discussing the differing ideas they will eventually
come to an agreement that is better than any one individual’s initial suggestions. In
integrative situations members are cooperative toward one another. They tend to be
supportive of others ideas and open to considering the merits of opinions different from
their own. Disagreements are confined to the issues and do not involve personalities.

The effects of integrative conflict are desirable. Team cohesion is usually

increased because members have survived some “rough waters” and have emerged with a

7
sound solution; they also have learned that they can trust one another to be fair and open
minded. Through integrative conflict, members usually are able to reach decisions that
they are proud of; the cumulative result is a process and a product that satisfies the whole
team. Integrative conflict, then, is highly positive in nature because it improves not only
the decisions of a team but also the process by which those decisions are made.

Conclusion:

Conflict is a necessary and integral part of realistic and effective problem solving
discussions. It is the essence of sound decisions making because disagreement is the best
vehicle for broadening perspectives, discovering alternatives, and stimulating creative
interaction among teach members. The effects of disagreement, however, depend on how
it is managed by team members. Conflict can be distributive and disruptive or it can be
integrative and constructive. When mismanaged, conflict can destroy a team’s
effectiveness; when handled well, it can greatly increase the quality of a team’s work and
make members feel proud of their work in the team.

Training in the nature of conflict and the methods of managing it is a pressing

need for all people who participate in problem solving groups, such as those that
constitute work teams. The negative associations of conflict need to be dispelled and
replaced with more realistic conceptions that make the legitimate distinction between
constructive and disruptive conflict. When team members see that conflict can be a
positive force in discussion, they are better prepared to adopt effective proposal attitudes
and behaviours in problem solving situations. Further more, the differences between
distributive and integrative conflict can help them learn how their own behaviour
contributes to the climate of the team which they belong.