Conflict Management

In order to ensure your assessment is correctly identified, the information and declaration below must be copied and pasted on to the title page of each written assessment. You must enter your own details prior to submission.

STUDENT DETAILS

ACAP Student ID: 195627
Name: Tyrone Jones
Course: Graduate Certificate In Counselling
ASSESSMENT DETAILS

Unit/Module: Conflict Management

Educator: Kat Howell

Assessment Name: Write an essay discussing the notion that the way in which individuals behave in conflict can lead to the peaceful resolution of disputes

Assessment Number: 1

Term & Year: 3/2012

Word Count: 2620
DECLARATION
I declare that this assessment is my own work, based on my own personal research/study . I also declare that this assessment, nor parts of it, has not been previously submitted for any other unit/module or course, and that I have not copied in part or whole or otherwise plagiarised the work of another student and/or persons. I have read the ACAP Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct Policy and understand its implications. I also declare, if this is a practical skills assessment, that a Client/Interviewee Consent Form has been read and signed by both parties, and where applicable parental consent has been obtained
Conflicts occur for a multitude of reasons with the complexity of the conflict often reflecting the “interests, emotions and values” (Condliffe, 2008, p.9) held by the individuals or groups involved in the conflict. While one may immediately think of the negative outcomes that are linked with a conflict such as the breakdown in a relationship, the reality is that not all conflicts end in turmoil. The final result of a conflict will depend on the conflict management approach that individuals use to present their viewpoint and whether they take the opportunity to listen to the opinion of the other party involved in the conflict. It is unfortunate that within many parts of society including homes, schools, places of work, governments and global organisations that the more destructive approaches to solving conflict are easily evident. This paper will note how the behaviour of individuals can lead to the peaceful resolution of disputes. It will identify the most common approaches to conflict; aggressive, passive and assertive behaviour and will analyse how each of these approaches lead to a positive or negative outcome to resolve conflict. Throughout this discussion it will be argued that assertive behaviour is the best approach to use when solving conflict as it allows for open ended questioning, reflective listening, empathy, negotiating and the managing of one’s emotions so that in the end both sides of the conflict come out with a win.
Conflicts normally arise due to the fact that we want something to happen the way we would like it to (Levin, 1985). The human body functions in such a manner that it has a natural response to conflict (Eunson, 2007) so that when everything is going our way our body is calm and relaxed. However when conflict occurs and our needs or wants are under threat of not being met our body moves into survival mode which triggers the “fight or flight” response (Levin, 1985). The physical symptoms that are evident during the fight or flight response include; rapid heartbeat, trembling hands, increase in adrenaline and sweating (Kotev, 2012). In essence the body provides the energy to those parts of the body that will allow one to either escape what is threatening the individual or the strength that they need to defend off an attack. However, whether one is fighting or fleeing from a threat, the individual’s thoughts become more concerned with who is right or wrong rather than the wants or needs of the two conflicting sides whilst at the same time a disconnection from one’s feelings takes place (Levin, 1985). The final result of either approach is going to be detrimental when trying to solve a conflict as each response results in an act of competiveness where there is always a loser especially when the conflict has been built up over time.
Whilst it may often appear that conflicts arise from a state of calmness and end up in an episode of calamity this is seldom the case. Conflicts will often transition through a ‘conflict spiral’ (Eunson, 2007) within which individuals will either flee from the conflict or become aggressively involved. The conflict will often start off being tolerated before some resistance towards the conflict (Eunson, 2007) starts occurring. Soon arguments begin to occur that are central to the conflict before a critical incident “sets the conflict into motion which reveals a pattern of ill feeling or hostility” (Eunson, 2007, p.13). This quickly turns into focusing on the faults of the opponent “with all evil on the other side and all virtue on our side” (Eunson, 2007, p.13). In order to confirm that one’s argument is correct each of the two sides of the conflict starts enlisting the support of others linking issues and rituals to indicate that the opposition has caused this conflict in the past (Eunson, 2007). Condliffe (2009) argues that within this stage of the conflict, the conflict may move into a destructive part or an avoidance part. This will depend on the availability of resources each party has available to them to support their argument as well as the conflict management approach each individual feels comfortable in using. The common approaches individuals utilise when trying to resolve conflict include; competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising and collaborating (Cornelius and Faire (2006) and Devito, 2007). Whilst it is more common that either of the aggressive, avoidant, accommodating or compromising approaches are used to solve a conflict, ultimately it will only be the collaborating approach that will result in a winning solution for all concerned.
“When faced with conflict we’re likely to want to work out who is right and who is wrong” (Cornelius & Faire, 2006, p.24) which quickly sets up the dynamic that only the strongest individual will come out as the winner. Beebe, Beebe and Redmond (2011, p.179) define aggression as the act of “expressing one’s interests while denying the rights of others by blaming, judging and evaluating other people.” It is often easy to identify aggression within conflict as individuals will use threatening language or body stand over tactics to put the other individual into a state of hyper vigilance. Through the use of these tactics it is hoped that the other individual will want to escape from this conflict thus giving the aggressive individual the win. The aggressive individual pays no attention to the fact they that have become a person who is self centred with the belief that their ideas will suit everyone (Devito, 2007). One of the most common forms of aggressive behaviour within a conflict situation is that of ‘tit for tat’ which causes great hostility and violence between the conflicting parties (Eunson, 2007). While the threat of physical harm is likely to cause a result this is not a positive solution when trying to look for a win-sin solution. However, there are time when an aggressive approach is suitable and appropriate to the environment in order to bring results for one individual. The best time to use a competitive style within conflict is when to lose would cause harm to oneself or others (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011) such as fighting for immediate assistance when seeking medical help for a loved one. However, it cannot be denied that whenever an aggressive approach is used to solve conflicts both parties fail to take responsibility for their side of the conflict with one side dominating while the other being submissive and running from the conflict (Hollier, Murray and Cornelius, 2004).
Just like the individual who uses aggression to solve their conflict must take responsibility for their behaviour so must the individual who avoids conflict. Unlike the aggressor who demonstrates a concern for whether they win or not the individual using avoidant type tactics has no concern for their own needs or the needs of others (Devito, 2007). Individuals using avoidant tactics rarely stand up for their own rights and often avoid the needs of others by becoming distant from others through physical or psychological measures. Devito (2007) suggests other observable behaviour within used by individuals using avoidance include a failure to communicate and changing the topic when talking about the conflict. While this behaviour might appear to bring peace to the conflict in reality the conflict continues to linger. This often results in the conflict exploding, often during a minor conflict that has been made worse by the original conflict. The most common characteristic of avoidant type behaviour is evident within the “demand-withdrawal pattern of conflict management” (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011, p.232). Someone will often make a demand whilst the second individual avoids the conflict by changing the subject or walking away. This is evident when an individual makes a demand and the other will either psychologically tune out or simply walk out of the room. This conflict often occurs either because one individual within the relationship either wants to change or end the relationship (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011). Whilst avoidant behaviour may demonstrate a lack of empathy and make things worse due to the lack of communication, there are some benefits of this behaviour. Through the use of avoidant type behaviour time is provided to think about the issues within the conflict and a period of rest in enabled to think of strategies to solve the conflict (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011).
Many people strive to get others to like them and thus often give into their demands. Using an accommodating approach to solving conflict allows harmony to be maintained and peace within the relationship to grow (Devito, 2007). While an accommodating style may be a short term solution which helps to build one’s self esteem in reality it guarantees that the individual is never going to have any of their own needs met. While it may be beneficial to let some small conflicts slide, this is not a suitable strategy when trying to solve more complicated issues. For example, it might be quite acceptable to accommodate the needs of a child and give them an ice cream for good behaviour but it would be unrealistic to accommodate this same child who suggested they would only ever eat McDonalds for dinner no matter how much they cried. While an accommodation approach may gain an individual some short term satisfaction by pleasing others and getting gratification by the positive emotions they experience after satisfying the needs of the other individual, in reality this approach short circuits “the possibility of finding a creative solution that is to everyone’s liking” (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011, p.234).
Besides the approach that sees both sides of the conflict winning the most common approach that individuals try to aim for is a compromise approach as this approach demonstrates concern for both the needs of the other as well as one’s own needs (Devito, 2007). While the relationship may remain status quo, in reality both sides of the conflict have to accept that there are going to be losses (Devito, 2007). A compromise approach may be the best approach when a quick solution is required as it allows each side of the conflict to have an equal share of the power. However, in the long run, it slowly depletes the relationship as each individual gives something up each time a compromise is made. Therefore, the best solution to a conflict is where both sides of the conflict win in every situation, otherwise known as the collaboration approach.
Individuals using a collaborative approach “are more likely to view conflict as a set of problems rather than a game in which one person wins and another loses” (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011, p.235). A collaborating approach allows both parties within the conflict to come out with a win and focuses on four distinct principles. This includes; separating people from the problem, focusing on shared interests, generating a variety of options to solve the conflict and basing decisions on objective criteria (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011). However, for the collaborative approach to work a variety of communication skills need to be utilised in order to validate the feelings of the other person, communicate one’s ideas and seek information about what they are thinking and use creativity to think broadly of the possible solutions available to the conflict.
In order for the collaborative approach to work the individuals within the conflict need to be able to focus on the other person rather than themselves. The “quality of attention has a powerful impact on the person being listened to: the person feels heard and supported, becomes clearer about her or his own thoughts and feelings, and more centred and purposeful” (Kahane, 2007, p.90). When a person feels like they have been heard and validated they are more likely to be open to the idea of listening to the person who has made them feel valued. However, if an individual wants to feel heard themselves they must interact in such a manner that demonstrates a willingness to learn what the other person is thinking and feeling. Goleman (1995) suggests that the way one learns to communicate with another is often through noting the tone of voice, gestures and facial expression that are being exhibited by the other individual which in turn promotes empathy. As well as noting the body language of the person of the other it is essential that there is active listening occurring if empathy is going to be enhanced. Through the process of active listening, the listener is able to check for understanding of what is being said, reflect back perceived meanings, ask questions to clarify information and exploration and accept their own emotions as well as the emotions of the other (Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2011) which then allows the problem to be agreed upon (Tillert & French, 2006). Once empathy has been established each individual within the conflict comes to understand that the ideas being put forward are being done so without prejudice.
If there is an empathic attitude between conflicting parties rather than individuals who are continually trying to claim victory over the other it is more likely that a collaborating approach will thrive. In turn this makes the search for the best solutions to the conflict more achievable. There is no doubt that conflict is a part of everyday life but it is important to remember that there are reasons why individuals have unreasonable emotions and that there are hidden stories behind the explosion of emotions as this allows for solutions to be based on what is appropriate according to the issue involved rather than reacting to the individual concerned (Ladd, 2005). Once understanding for the emotional issues around the conflict has been established, questioning can take place while will “secure additional information” (Devito, 2007, p.114). Questioning allows for each individual within the conflict to expand their ideas and demonstrate support towards the other individual within the conflict (Devito, 2007). The expansion of ideas will allow for other ideas to follow on from the initial idea. It is essential to brainstorm ideas without censoring the ideas so that the ideas being put forth from either individual is not judged (Devito, 2007). A further reason for the importance of not censoring ideas is the realization that the current conflict does not exist by itself but rather within a transformation framework which comprises the “present situation, the horizon of preferred future and the development of change processes linking the two” (Lederach, 2003, p.38). Once a variety of solutions have been discovered it is important to test, negotiate, evaluate and accept or reject the solution to determine whether the solution can be put into a permanent operation (Devito, 2007). This will determine which solution will result in a win for both sides of the conflict.
It is evident that conflicts are a natural part of life that can either have positive or negative consequences. While there are some benefits to using a competitive, avoidant, accommodating or compromising style when trying to solve conflicts in certain situations the ultimate result of all of these approaches ends in a loss for either one of both individuals within the conflict. Success comes for both sides of a conflict when a collaborative approach is used as it turns the attention onto a set of problems and person centred focus rather that a competition that needs to be won. However, the collaboration approach will only work if empathy is established between the conflicting parties and communication skills are utilised so that opinions are valued and each person has an opportunity to express their thoughts and emotions without judgement. Through the establishment of empathy and two way communication a multitude of short and long term solutions can be discussed so that a permanent operation can be put in place that sees a victory for both sides of the conflict.

References
Beebe, S.A., Beebe, S.J., & Redmond, M.V. (2011) Interpersonal communication: Relating to others, (6th ed). Boston: Pearson Education. Condliffe, P.F.J. (2008). Understanding conflict. In Conflict management: A practical guide. (3rd ed). Sydney: LexisNexis. ```` Condliffe, P. (2009) Conflict management: A practical guide, (2nd ed). Chatsworth: New South Wales: LexisNexis Cornelius, H., & Faire, S. (2006) Partners not opponents. In Everyone can win, (2nd ed). Sydney: Simon and Schuster. Devito, J.A. (2007) The interpersonal communication book, (11th ed). Boston: Pearson Education. Eunson, B. (2007) Conflict management, Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons. Goleman, D. (1995) The roots of empathy. In Emotional intelligence, London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hollier, F., Murray, K., & Cornelius, H. (2004) Conflict resolution trainers’ manual: 12 skills, Sydney: Conflict Resolution Network. Kahane, A. (2007) Empathy. In Solving tough problems: An open way of talking, listening and creating new realities, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kotev, S. (November 6, 2012) Somatic Skills, Retrieved from http://www.stephenkotev.com/ somaticskills/ Ladd, P.D. (2005) Anger and conciliation. In Mediation, conciliation and emotions: A practioner’s guide for understanding emotions in dispute resolution. Lanham: MD: University Press of America. Lederach, J.P. (2003) Creating a map of conflict. In the little book of conflict transformation, Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Levin, L. (1985) The anatomy of conflict, Retrieved from http://www.consciouscomm unication.ca/anatomy.pdf. Tillett, G. & French, B. (2006) Collaborative processes. In Resolving conflict: A practical approach, (3rd ed). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

References: Beebe, S.A., Beebe, S.J., & Redmond, M.V. (2011) Interpersonal communication: Relating to others, (6th ed). Boston: Pearson Education. Condliffe, P.F.J. (2008). Understanding conflict. In Conflict management: A practical guide. (3rd ed). Sydney: LexisNexis. ```` Condliffe, P. (2009) Conflict management: A practical guide, (2nd ed). Chatsworth: New South Wales: LexisNexis Cornelius, H., & Faire, S. (2006) Partners not opponents. In Everyone can win, (2nd ed). Sydney: Simon and Schuster. Devito, J.A. (2007) The interpersonal communication book, (11th ed). Boston: Pearson Education. Eunson, B. (2007) Conflict management, Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons. Goleman, D. (1995) The roots of empathy. In Emotional intelligence, London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hollier, F., Murray, K., & Cornelius, H. (2004) Conflict resolution trainers’ manual: 12 skills, Sydney: Conflict Resolution Network. Kahane, A. (2007) Empathy. In Solving tough problems: An open way of talking, listening and creating new realities, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kotev, S. (November 6, 2012) Somatic Skills, Retrieved from http://www.stephenkotev.com/ somaticskills/ Ladd, P.D. (2005) Anger and conciliation. In Mediation, conciliation and emotions: A practioner’s guide for understanding emotions in dispute resolution. Lanham: MD: University Press of America. Lederach, J.P. (2003) Creating a map of conflict. In the little book of conflict transformation, Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Levin, L. (1985) The anatomy of conflict, Retrieved from http://www.consciouscomm unication.ca/anatomy.pdf. Tillett, G. & French, B. (2006) Collaborative processes. In Resolving conflict: A practical approach, (3rd ed). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.