Mediating Interpersonal and Small Group Conflict. Cheryl A. PicardЧитать онлайн книгу.
abnormal, and we have good reason to be suspicious if we find a society or social organization that displays no evidence of conflict”; and Marx believed conflict was an important aspect of group formation. Coser’s book, The Functions of Social Conflict, published in 1956, is often cited as the cornerstone of current theories of social conflict. Coser positions conflict as a constructive form of socialization and posits that a certain degree of conflict is an ally in the formation and satisfactory continuation of group life.
Defining Conflict
There is no one definition of conflict. Deutsch defines conflict as “existing whenever incompatible activities occur” (1973:10). Coser gives a fuller explanation; “conflict is a struggle over values or claims to status, power, and scarce resources, in which the aims of the conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired values but also to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals” (1968:232). Himes suggests that the way to approach the question of social conflict is to focus on the struggle between the actors. He defines conflict as “the purposeful struggles between collective actors who use social power to defeat or remove opponents and to gain status, power, resources and scarce values” (1980:14). Finally, Hocker and Wilmot define conflict as “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (1995:21).
Individuals and groups engage in conflict for the purpose of gaining something that is perceived to be in short supply, or over needs that appear incompatible. Moore (1986) identifies five causal elements of conflict. These causes are relationship issues, value conflicts, conflicts about interests, discrepancies over factual information, and clashes over structural inequality. Perceived incompatible goals and the perception of scarce resources are central to many conflict struggles. Resources can be physical, economic, or social commodities. Tangible resources, such as money, land, jobs, and position, are easily identified. It is intangible resources – love, esteem, recognition, and respect – that are much harder to identify. Power, status, and resources are the leading causes of conflict.
A central element in interpersonal conflict is communication.
A central element in the resolution of interpersonal conflict, and an underlying principle of this book, involves the role of communication. Communication is the verbal and non-verbal exchange of thoughts and emotions to exchange meaning. How one communicates in a conflict situation has profound implications for the residual impact of the conflict. Communication can exacerbate the situation or lead to productive management. For instance, rigid, insistent communication can defeat the constructive aspects of conflict while open, shared communication can build trust and lead to mutual understanding and productive resolution.
The study of conflict is eclectic and multi-disciplinary and gives the appearance of being fragmented. Deutsch (1994), one of the leading psychologists in the study of conflict, suggests that beneath this appearance there are a number of common themes that cut across disciplines and types of conflict. He summarizes these commonalities in a number propositions. First, most conflicts are mixed-motive conflicts in which the parties involved in the conflict have both cooperative and competitive interests. Second, most conflict can be constructive as well as destructive. Conflict is the root of personal and social change and it is the medium through which problems can be aired and solutions found. The question is not how to eliminate or prevent conflict but rather how to develop the knowledge that will give rise to lively controversy instead of deadly quarrel. Third, within most conflicts, the cooperative and competitive interests of the parties give rise to two distinctive processes of conflict resolution – integrative (cooperative) bargaining and distributive (competitive) bargaining. Associated with the different processes are distinctive strategies and tactics for dealing with conflict, differing communication processes, and different attitudes. And fourth, whether the outcome of a conflict will be constructive or destructive depends on the relative strengths of the conflicting parties’ cooperative and competitive interests.
Conflict occurs within a context of interdependence. For conflict to arise, the actions of one party must affect another; if they do not, differences would exist, but conflict would not (Katz and Lawyer, 1993). Conflict is also a matter of perception. If neither of the parties involved in an interaction perceives the situation to be problematic, then once again there is no conflict. For conflict to surface, one or more of the parties involved must perceive the status quo as problematic and want to change the situation in which they are interdependently involved.
For conflict to surface, one or more of the parties involved must perceive the status quo as problematic and want to change the situation in which they are interdependently involved.
Responding to Conflict
For conflict to be constructive, the parties involved must hold a number of essential beliefs. First, they must believe that people can change. In ongoing relationships, people usually adjust, accommodate, and compromise without losing their sense of self worth or giving up their needs. Inflexibility, however, destroys constructive conflict. Second, the parties must believe that allowing a conflict to go unresolved is not acceptable. Third, the parties involved must believe that their view of the conflict may be distorted or incomplete and that understanding the other party’s view of the situation is important. In this way, conflict becomes a learning experience that involves asking, sharing, moving, and changing. Fourth, those involved must have the will to find a solution that meets the interests of both parties. This requires focusing on the relational aspects of the conflict rather than on self-interest and having empathy for the other party. And finally, constructive conflict management is based on the belief that people will try to improve a negative situation if given a fair chance.
Conflict can be influenced by an array of antecedent conditions (Bunker et al, 1995). One condition is the physical context which includes such things as location, communication opportunities, and time limits. A second condition involves the social context which includes the number of disputants, openness to third-party intervenors or observers, expectations, relationships, and personality considerations. A third condition is the issue context which includes the number of issues in dispute and the sequencing of the issues.
A number of other factors can influence whether the process of conflict resolution will be constructive or destructive. Some of the factors discussed by Boardman and Horowitz (1994) include the nature of the relationship, the history and power differences between the parties, the perceived significance of consequences, how rigidly the issues are presented, the personal traits and characteristics of the parties, their gender and ethnicity, situational constraints, the inherent conflict management skills of the parties, the various conflict management strategies used, and the extent of diversity in values and attitudes between the parties.
Conflict Styles
Conflict styles are patterned responses that people use in conflict. They are similar to a personality style, although they can be changed. Conflict styles can be viewed as having two dimensions – assertiveness and cooperativeness. The assertiveness dimension reflects the extent to which we seek to satisfy our own needs while the cooperativeness dimension reflects the degree to which we attempt to satisfy others’ needs. Using these two dimensions, Thomas and Kilmann (1974) delineated five styles of conflict management, each representing a set of skills which would be useful in certain kinds of situations. Conventional wisdom, for example, recognizes that “two heads are better than one” (collaborate); it also says, “kill your enemies with kindness” (accommodate); “might makes right” (compete); “split the difference” (compromise); and “leave well enough alone” (avoid).
According to Thomas and Kilmann, individuals who compete are high on assertive and low on cooperative dimensions. Competitive individuals are able to stand up for their rights and defend positions they believe in. They often try to “win”. This style is useful when quick and decisive action is vital or when an unpopular course of action needs implementing, for example, in cost cutting or disciplinary situations. Accommodating individuals are usually unassertive and cooperative. People who accommodate often neglect their