Conflict is ever present. Especially in this modern, fast-paced world, we must all deal with conflicts of a sort both large and small. Some of these are in the workplace, yet many exist in our personal lives in interpersonal relationships. Because conflict is such a misunderstood concept, it is often feared and avoided, thus compounding strife in the relationship. However, there is encouraging news. With the correct approach and knowledge, interpersonal conflict can be managed effectively and satisfactorily.
Of the many steps to maneuver successfully through conflict, the first is to understand that it is not to be feared. As the Systems Process Theory of Conflict posits, “Conflict is necessary for the growth and adaptation of a system [i.e. an interpersonal relationship]” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 147). A normal process which occurs in any social environment, it must be dealt with cognitively and with the use of the tools at one’s disposal. “Those who manage conflict well obtain efficient victories; those who fail to manage conflict well exhaust their resources and are eventually defeated” (Watson, 2007, ¶ 2).
Once conflict is accepted as a necessary component of life and relationships, the next step is to understand the process through which conflict proceeds. The five stages are, in order, prelude, trigger event, initiation, differentiation and resolution. In the prelude to conflict, certain factors exist which affect the inclination for a conflict to manifest itself. Personality traits and proclivities of the participants, such as temperament, attitudes, anticipation of conflict, defensiveness and competition are some of the contributors to conflict realization. Certain qualities of the relationship, such as the level of equality (or perceived equality), how each has handled conflict separately in the past and, most importantly, how the couple has handled past conflict also determine conflict potential. Both the physical and social environment in which they find themselves, as well as whether there are third parties involved who have influence on one or more of the participants will play a part in the future.
Additionally, one element that influences all phases of conflict management is the conflict climate. Whether or not there is a balance of power, a sense of trust and a supportive atmosphere will impact both the likelihood of conflict as well as how successfully the conflict is managed. For instance, in a hierarchal rather than egalitarian relationship, the dominant partner holds more power than the other does, and so has more control over the dynamics. “Power has been defined as an attempt to influence another person’s behavior to produce desired outcomes” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 46). If such is the case, the choices for determining whether or not to proceed with any future perceived conflict and how that conflict might be resolved are strongly affected.
The second phase of the process, the triggering event, is the catalyst for acknowledging a potential issue that requires attention. “Overt conflict usually occurs only periodically when people's contrary values or goals surface through a triggering event. The underlying issues lie dormant until something happens to trigger conflict behavior” (Milligan, n.d., p. 2). That “something” can include a rebuff, an illegitimate demand and criticism among others. Cumulative annoyance is a frequent trigger as it is a build-up from repeated, objectionable behavior.
This is an important stage as it is where one determines whether or not to engage in conflict. This is when a choice for conflict avoidance as strategy becomes a possibility. One may choose to ignore disagreeable behaviors as an alternative to what one sees as the greater of two evils – conflict. As previously noted, many individuals perceive conflict as a negative and sometimes fearful exercise. This may be caused by many factors such as an inclination to avoid any disharmonious pursuits; a low self-esteem, which assumes that one is unworthy to assert oneself; fear of an encounter with the other individual or a very unpleasant history with past conflicts.
As Michael E. Roloff and Danette E. Ifert contend, “Avoidance can serve useful purposes, as long as it eliminates arguing and does no damage to the relationship” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 166). Though avoidance can sometimes be warranted, overall it is not the healthy choice to make as it produces a “lose-lose” result. As one who has cause to initiate the management of a conflict and does not, this person loses in that damage to the relationship, not to mention to one’s self-esteem, must follow, and so both parties are harmed.
If this person, however, does indeed engage in dispute, the couple is said to be in the initiation stage. This is the ideal point to apply the S-TLC System as defined by authors D. D. Cahn and R. A. Abigail (2007, p. 41), which stands for Stop, Think, Listen and Communicate. The most important element, I believe, is the Stop portion of the process, which asks that one refrain from an emotional knee-jerk response to delving into a “clash” with the other individual. This is when one must remind himself that conflict is a healthy, natural process for the solution of personal issues and not to be taken as a personal attack of one’s ego. One must consider all the variables such as the nature of the other person, his or her importance, the importance to oneself of the potential resolution, what the real issues are and how best to approach them.
It is at the initiation stage, for instance, where one would plan a strategy for the conflict, such as accommodation. If the issue is not that important, and yet the happiness of the other person is, then one might decide to simply acquiesce. This is not a form of surrender, just a way to result in a win-win situation with a minimum amount of effort and turmoil. If, however, the motivation for accommodation is to avoid the perceived unpleasantness of confrontation, this is more or less a lose-win situation, which can cause future dissatisfaction and more intense conflict because of unresolved issues.
Now we are at the stage where the most important work is performed, the differentiation stage, or the stage at which we actually attempt to resolve the conflict. Again, important decisions must be made about our strategy. If we have little concern, trust and/or respect for the other, we might opt for a competitive style. “Competitive processes tend to yield the inverse, negative effects: obstructed communication, inability to coordinate activities, suspicion and a lack of self-confidence, desire to reduce the other's power and to dominate them” (Deutsch, 2000, ¶ 3). If we are only concerned about our own self-interests with no real interest in the other’s, we would go for the win-lose scenario that results from a competitive approach. Though we may have achieved a “win,” it is probably a short-lived one in the grand scheme of things, and not a producer of long-term satisfaction. This would be deemed a destructive approach.
It is generally believed that the most desirable strategies that should be employed are the constructive ones of compromise and collaboration, of which collaboration is truly the ideal because it produces a win-win result achieved through mutual respect and cooperation. A compromise generates a negotiated resolution which may still leave one or more parties dissatisfied with the outcome. “This strategy is generally used to achieve temporary solutions, to avoid destructive power struggles or when time pressures exist. One drawback is that partners can lose sight of important values and long-term objectives” (Hoban, n.d., ¶ 20). Therefore, collaboration is the preferred strategy.
If two people are to engage in a cooperative effort, they must do so with the appropriate behavior, which would be an assertive one. Assertiveness simply means that one is self-confident enough to be able express himself clearly and stand behind his beliefs and desires. It is not an aggressive posture which is more of a destructive, competitive approach; nor is it passive aggressive which entails duplicitous behavior to achieve “success” at the expense of the other. Invariably, this becomes a lose-lose proposition for no real solution to the problems has occurred, and questionable actions used to achieve the ends. Being assertive can be simplified to “behaving as an adult.” It is carrying on a nonabusive dialogue for the solution of a problem. “In fact, [Joseph P.] Folger and his colleagues refer to the collaboration approach as the ‘problem-solving orientation’” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 83).
Thus in a collaborative atmosphere, the participants attempt to employ their best communication skills to try to achieve mutual satisfaction. They must consider variables such as the other’s preferred conflict style/strategy, and so adapt accordingly. How have past conflicts progressed? This might also require some modification to tactics. Knowing the various theories of how conflict is played out could also require alteration in method. Taking into account the Psychodynamic Theory, for instance, based on Freud’s work with the subconscious, which posits that one could displace or misplace his vented up frustrations, one would need to consider that the issues being discussed may not be the true issues involved. One would have to delve deeper to discover what the true resentments of the other’s are.
Ideally, a solution will have been achieved, and we may move into the resolution stage in which we confirm that we have truly reached a mutually satisfying result for the dilemma – a genuine win-win scenario. It is important that there are no lingering resentments that might cause future flare-ups of the conflict; that would not be true resolution. A bonus of having achieved this resolution is that it reinforces for us the positive aspects of conflict.
And so, we have bearded the lion in his den; we have shown that with the proper knowledge, attitude and skills, we need not fear nor avoid this concept of conflict. By understanding it as a natural occurrence that can be successfully handled, we can build and improve upon all our present, and more importantly, future relationships.
References
Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Pearson.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 21-40.
Abstract retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10166/?nid=5732
Hoban, T. J. (n.d.). Managing conflict: A guide for watershed partnerships. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/kyw/brochures/manageconflict.html
Milligan, R. A. (n.d.). Understanding conflict. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from srdc.msstate.edu/resilient/newrescom/ellie/milligandocs/conflict.pdf
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Watson, S. (2007, August 1). The inevitability of conflict. Security Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.securitymagazine.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000144843
No comments:
Post a Comment