Last week, I had the opportunity to take a seminar at work entitled \"Conflict Resolution in the Workplace\". I learned a lot of interesting things, and when I was in the chat room one evening someone said something to which I thought \"I just learned about that!\" This response led me to think perhaps you guys might be interested in what the class presented.
You are free to agree or disagree with the points of the presentation, but hopefully the information will be as useful to you as I found it to be.
===============
As long as more than one person is involved in a situation, there will at some point inevitably be conflict. The key is learning how to manage and resolve the conflict. Step one is recognizing what type of conflict is going on. Step two is recognizing how we might want to respond versus how we should respond. Step three is resolving the conflict while also maintaining our personal integrity.
===============
There are 2 general types of conflict:
Cognative conflict occurs when people have different ideas for the ways that things should be done or different views of the same subject. Of the 2 types, cognative conflicts tend to also be the most easily resolved.
Emotional conflicts are a bit trickier and involve how people feel about a situation or individual. Resolving these cases requires the ability to see beyond one's own response to the situation in order to empathize (not sympathize!) with the other person. Since in all reality, that skill is remarkably rare, the bulk of the session discussed the role of the mediator. Included in this was the distinction between mediation and arbitration: a huge but subtle difference.
Both types can be rolled into the same situation, but typically one or the other will dominate. Being aware of the true source of contention allows the parties to work to resolve it. As a side note, many disagreements may LOOK like cognative ones but are actually emotional in nature -- usually these situations involve core beliefs such as religion.
===============
There are generally 5 responses people have to conflict. The response they choose often depends on how they view the importance of their relationship with the other person/group/etc.
Aggression: This is the one people choose if they don't particularly care about their relationship with the other party. It is an attempt to order the outcome, and in many cases takes the form of blame-throwing in order to avoid taking responsibility for a situation.
Appeasement: People who are too heavily invested in the idea of making the other party happy are more apt to take this route to resolve a conflict. It involves simply giving in to the other's ideas or suggestions, or capitulating to demands.
Avoidance: Instead of dealing with the situation, simply ducking it is another response often seen. Usually, the person has little or no interest in the other party or the subject matter and doesn't want to be bothered.
Compromise: Both parties are interested in maintaining the relationship and are willing to work a give-and-take arrangement that could suit both parties.
Cooperation: Again, both parties are interested in maintaining the relationship. If possible, neither party gives up anything to get what they want, but work together for mutual benefit.
Can you identify instances where you've used these different conflict-resolution strategies? Can you identify instances where you've seen other people use these responses when they are dealing with you?
===============
When can lack of conflict be BAD?
Absense of conflict is not necessarily good. In fact, there are plenty of instances were no conflict at all is particularly harmful to not only the individual but also the ultimate group dynamic. The examples cited in the seminar were: not voicing your opinions because of fear of retribution in some form; not speaking up because you know your ideas are ignored anyway and have given up; you just don't care enough to bother. In the first 2 circumstances, this lack of external conflict is actually an example of internal conflict. If someone wants to say something, but doesn't because they know they'll either be dismissed or shouted at, this creates internal conflict which will eventually need to be addressed. Folks who go \"postal\" often are expressing some seriously unresolved internal conflict!! But grabbing up a gun is not the usual way internal conflict like this is addressed: often the party chooses to leave the group (find a new job) or continues to suffer in silence which often leads to physical problems. In addition, the group looses out on the diversity and the potential for innovation which individual contributions bring.
When can active conflict be GOOD?
Most all of the innovations in the world are the result of active conflict. (And 'conflict' does not automatically mean war.) People disagree, but choose to hash out their ideas and come to a workable solution which furthers the goals of both sides. People argue, but in the doing ultimately discover their own personal strength and grow as a result. Without conflict, there is no opportunity for growth. I believe this quote from Margaret Atwood sums it up nicely:
\"In Paradise there are no stories, because there are no journeys. It's loss and regret and misery and yearning that drive the story forward, along its twisted road.\"
It is not the conflict which drives the story (or life), but rather the hero's attempt to resolve that conflict which is the important part. When can active conflict be GOOD? When it teaches those involved something they personally value: how to work together, how to listen, how to determine what's really important and what's not, how to manage their personal power.
============
This is not from the seminar, but my own ruminations:
I'm the type of person who generally avoids confrontation. I'll suffer in silence or nod obligingly, even when I don't agree. Heck, I run out the room during emotionally tense moments on TV!! I'm much better about this than I used to be, but I still fall into the old patterns of 'keep the external peace at all costs' mode. When I think of the Jedi as being the Guardians of Peace, there are 2 kinds of peace which come to mind:
Internal peace: this results from doing what we honestly feel is the right thing, from which we can face ourselves in the mirror each morning and smile because we have had the courage to be true to our Selves.
External peace: making sure other people aren't at contention.
Which is more important, I pondered? The more I thought about it, the more I have to say that I believe Internal Peace is the more important of the two. Why? Ultimately, I can only truly control myself. To think that I can control even one other person much less the world and during that process not create additional conflict is folly. If I learn to speak rightly (as I define it for myself), I might indeed create conflict with those who don't think or feel as I do, but part of my definition of 'speak rightly' does include the idea that I'm not always right, that I have to consider how others will interpret my actions, etc. I do not exist in a bubble, but I can only truly be responsible for myself and my own actions. When I am at peace within myself, I can act to help others find the same peace within themselves. If I am not peace with myself, then external peace is an illusion.
Topic Author
