Content

Concepts and Methods of Conflict Resolution
Dr. Chip Hauss

Overview

One of the important things in conflict resolution is thinking; the reason for this is threefold:

All conflicts involve differences, which could result from the following:

One should also always bear in mind that every conflict has outcomes, which could take the following forms:

The word crisis is derived from the Greek word ‘Krises’, which means turning point. A crisis can be a danger or an opportunity and occurs in every conflict’s lifecycle, which usually consists of the following stages:

Reconciliation takes a long time and, as history suggests, only rarely occurs. We should bear in mind the following points when discussing reconciliation:

Sources of Conflict

All conflicts have two sets of sources. The left side of the following column lists objective differences that are usually beyond our control, but are often the root of the conflict. The other side of the chart lists subjective elements of conflict, many of which involve emotions.

Examples of objective differences are history, culture and language, i.e., factors that cannot be changed. In addition, factors such as occupation become part of the structure in which the conflict operates, and thus are very difficult to change.

People also have objective differences in values, priorities and interests. For example, a vast amount of the population of the United States own hand guns; they have an interest in possessing these weapons; they feel they have the right to do so, and they value this right. On the other hand, children are killed every day by guns, and many people now have an interest in getting rid of these guns. As a statistic of comparison, there are currently 13,000 McDonalds Restaurants in the USA and 120,000 legal gun dealers. Americans, therefore, have a conflict of interest over the possession of guns.

Similarly, power imbalances produce conflicts, especially when they shift. One basic tenant of the field of international relations states that whenever one country gains power, the system becomes destabilized. With regard to the Palestinian-Israeli case, the fact that the Israelis are more powerful and much wealthier is very important from all perspectives. The fact that Arabs outnumber Israelis is also important, for Israelis view this as a kind of power imbalance. The objective sources of a conflict are usually not resolved until the end, when much pressure is applied.

Subjective elements of conflict often involve emotions. For example, injustice is often something personally felt and therefore listed under the subjective side. Historians tell us that when peoples' situations begin to improve they begin to realize how far behind they are, and one of the emotional responses to this is anger. Psychologists tell us that hatred and fear are actually variations on the same emotion. One can disagree with a certain person, without hating him or her unless there is also fear of him or her. These two emotions coincide most markedly when serious misperceptions result from the crossing of cultures and languages.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait just prior to the Gulf War, the American Ambassador met with Saddam Hussein and the rest of the leaders in an attempt to resolve the conflict, but the main problem was that neither of the two sides understood where the other was coming from. Both sides were motivated not so much by the desire to be the most powerful, but by the desire to not be the least powerful. What is jealousy other than my fear of what you have? Whether we are talking about a family dispute or an international dispute, a degree of jealousy and the desire for control lead to a lack of serious discussion, not just sitting down and talking. The Israelis and the Palestinians spend a lot of time talking, but I doubt that any real listening or real communication has occurred.

Another aspect of subjectivity is the image of the enemy. Psychologists tell us that the enemy is not simply someone with whom you have a dispute, but someone who invades your values. A person and I could disagree, but I make him my enemy. President Reagan, for example, called the Soviet Union "the focus of evil in the world", the Ayatollah of Iran called the USA "the Great Satan", and the USA called Saddam Hussein "the Second Hitler."

In making someone an enemy, we do the following:

We all know that what keeps the Palestinian-Israeli conflict unsolved has much to do with the basic subjective values and assumptions listed above, which emerge as a root cause for almost every conflict, ranging from racism to organizational conflicts.

An important element in this is language or the way of expressing things. For example, instead of saying, "I hate you for what you've just said", it is far more constructive to say, "When you say…I feel…" By this method one takes responsibility for what he/she feels, which makes us open to the other person. Instead of thinking in terms of making concessions, it is better to reframe the problem.

Conflict & Conflict Resolution

When getting into a conflict one should follow the following steps:

Let us use the student-teacher relationship to illustrate this last point. It is very common for a student to come to a teacher. Of course, the teacher has other priorities and wants the student to get out of his office as soon as possible. Teachers should be very positive, and when in conflict with a student over a grade, for example, they should use good will and let the student know that they share the problem. The teacher should say to himself, "I am going to treat the student with dignity and respect. The student knows that I am giving the grade, and she or he knows that I can do nothing about the power imbalance. If I treat the student with good will and demonstrate willingness to re-address the problem together, attitudes on both sides will improve."

With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian case, it is important that you as Palestinians concern yourselves not only with your own future outcome, but also with the future of the Israelis as well, for their situation will affect you.

Mediators can sometimes be very helpful but their impact depends on the situation. In my research I reached the surprising conclusion that the role of third party mediators is pretty uncertain and that some conflicts are best resolved without mediation. George Mitchell, who took part in the Northern Ireland talks, for example, was very effective and his role was useful. Richard Holbrooke on the other hand, who was involved in the Bosnian Conflict, did not succeed. His main mistake probably was that he eliminated the Bosnian Serbs from the negotiations.

It is important to make initiatives and take action. Conflict participants have to see the benefits of resolution if they are to remain with the process, as do the communities they represent. Encouraging each participant to see the conflict from the point of view of the other is also helpful in understanding the issue from the various perspectives.

Sometimes certain details are more important to one side than the other and can be granted as concessions relatively painlessly. For example, if a student who has gotten three Ds on three papers gets a B on his last paper and thinks that he deserves a B-plus, I am more likely to give him that B-plus. The difference will not change his average grade, but will give him a sense of personal satisfaction.

The most interesting cases are the ones in which the stakes are high on both sides and where the outcome of each affects the other. It is these cases in which cooperation is most possible and aggression is most counterproductive. In a company, for instance, workers, managers and decision-makers all operate under a system called the ‘feedback process.’ Furthermore, the company as a whole operates in an environment that involves customers, suppliers and contractors, competitors and the community. Poor relations among any of these will detract from the success of the company, whereas good relations promote such success.

Let us summarize:

Case Studies

Let us discuss some of the participants' conflicts as examples.

Communication is missing in each of these three cases, and out of communication, trust. There are times when learning facts is very important, but in these three cases missing information was not the critical factor. When speaking of trust one should bear in mind that trust is something that builds or deteriorates.

For example, if I tell you that I am Jewish, what assumptions do you make? Probably that I am here to influence you, that there is something wrong and suspicious going on; immediately there is mistrust.

What should we do then? We basically should seek to understand and to stop making assumptions and rather look at ourselves as a part of the problem and discuss it. While doing so, we should not give up what we truly believe but yet be constructive and seek solutions that relatively satisfy both parties – i.e., we should build trust.

One should always find common ground for constructive dialogue, as in any conflict all of the parties contribute to the problem. With regard to Participant B’s problem with Israel, one can agree with any of the facts listed in the paper but it fails to see Palestinians as part of the problem, which is solely attributed to the Israelis. Even if they are responsible for 90% of the problems, the Palestinians are responsible for the remaining 10%.

With regard to Participant A’s intra-company conflict, there are always things that we can do even if the manager is not responsible. We are realizing that hierarchy is not an ideal management structure, and we all know that a general manager is always very busy, but there are ways to move the issue up on his agenda. In my university department, for example, there are 25 full-time faculty and 25 part-time faculty so the head of our department is extremely busy. If I simply tell him something he will soon forget it but I know that he responds best to e-mail, so for important matters I send e-mail not to his account at work, but rather to his account at home.

Regarding case 1: how is the boss going to be approached?

As a general principle, for a dialogue to work one has to open up all the assumptions and make the hidden agendas public. Otherwise more mistrust is created (rather than more trust). The boss must be approached in the way that best allows him to respond positively, i.e., the setting must be found in which the boss is most comfortable, and then he must be made to pay attention in a friendly way. Remove all or as much of the threats to him as possible, for in fact he stands to lose as well. Offer alternatives in a way that is neither threatening nor pushy.

Any successful organization that deals well with its conflicts works best when based on effective relationships, where the manager assumes that his workers are doing a good job and the workers know that if there is a problem they should and can talk to the general manager about it. Because the manager does not have the time to talk to every employee and deal with every problem, working relationships must first be built. When discussing a problem assume that you are part of the problem yourself, and be sure to present it in a way that is not threatening to the other person. Remember that your boss is more powerful than you are.

Your objective is not only to find common ground or an alternative, but to understand the core of the problem. In this case, it may simply involve making your case loudly enough for him to hear. Communication is a two way process; the other person has to listen and you can facilitate this, even when the necessary dialogue is not pleasant. Remember also that you have the final option of leaving and taking another job. To state simply the alternatives; one can be loyal to his/her work, engage in dialogue or exit. All three options involve risk.

Dialogues are difficult. A dialogue is, as Yankelovich describes it, a discussion so energized that neither party leaves it in the same way they went in.

None of the conflicts mentioned above will be solved between now and the year 2003, but we can begin to improve the situation.

To analyze this case, the first question is, who is involved? There is the head teacher, the embroidery teacher, the pupil, her family, and the area officer.

In this case knowledge does matter. The family has one set of information, the head teacher has another, and the two sets are incompatible. The best thing to do in such a situation is to let the mother yell and shout until she finishes; once she has grown tired of shouting she will be more willing to listen, at which point you can explain your side of the misunderstanding. The head teacher can tell the mother that she understands her anger, and then ask what she thinks they together can do about the situation. The first objective is to try to make sure that both parties are working with the same information. The next step is to engage in re-framing, since the head teacher’s position is to defend the teacher and the school and the mother's to defend her daughter. These positions are rather rigid, and both sides need to be able to view the situation from a different perspective.

Furthermore, the fact that the head teacher threw the mother out of her office means that she got angry as well. This is quite normal, for the situation was unpleasant and insulting. What, however, could she have done instead?

The resolution of this conflict involves two aspects: the first is learning how to prevent such conflicts form occurring in the future, and the second is how to repair the damaged relationship, since the parents, the student and the teachers will all have to continue working together.

Dealing with and Preventing Conflicts

The following points are helpful in dealing with tense and angry situations:

After a conflict has been closed, one can engage in ‘Preventive Conflict Resolution’ to ensure that such conflicts do not reoccur in the future.

First, the following are some general principles and techniques to help initiate dialogue and prevent a conflict from becoming personal.

If you as an individual uphold the following principles you increase the chances of reaching the best possible outcome, even if the other person in the conflict does not participate: