COM 202 Interpersonal Communication
Resolving Conflicts
What is conflict? Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference from the other parties in achieving their goals.
Conflict is natural and inevitable. People view conflict as unpleasant because we are taught to be unrealistic (fairy-tale endings); we are taught that conflicts are violent (Roadrunner cartoons); and many people view conflict as dangerous and undesirable (domestic violence/street crime).
Conflict is inevitable. Although it is impossible to eliminate conflict, there are ways to manage it effectively.
Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict
Integration vs. Polarization.
Participants in a dysfunctional conflict accentuate differences; act on biases, underestimate commonalities shared with the other person. Participants in a functional conflict respect each other's needs and stress genuine commonalities.
Polarization is the "us" vs "them" approach; the "good" vs "bad" syndrome. Polarization typically leads to binary thinking which omits the vast area between poles. Polarization is learned through role modeling and through narrowly defined experiences.
Willingness vs. Unwillingness to Cooperate.
Participants in a dysfunctional conflict see each other as opponents. Such relationships are commonly defined as a "win/ lose" arrangement. Participants in a functional conflict recognize the benefits of cooperation in certain areas. These relationships are commonly seen as "win/win" arrangements.
Agreement vs. Coercion.
In dysfunctional conflicts the participants rely heavily on power. One common power dynamic is coercion. Coercion is the use of force OR the threat to use force to get one's way or to force compliance on the part of others.
Force can come in many guises: physical force, social force, emotional force, financial force, blackmail ...
De-escalation vs. Escalation.
In dysfunctional conflicts the problems seem to grow larger, rather than smaller. Catastrophizing becomes routine in such relationships. Problem solutions take a back seat to survival or to one upsmanship. Functional conflict solves more problems than it creates. Solutions to problems take center stage.
Some people "catastrophize" problems ie: "I stubbed my toe and it hurts awful! I just know I broke it. It will probably swell up and break open and I'll get it infected; and I'll have to have it amputated; and I'll get gangrene; and I'll die.
Keeping focus vs losing sight of the original issue.
In dysfunctional conflicts, the partners may bring in unrelated problems. One version of this is called:"gunnysacking" where one party stores up old grievances and waits to unload both barrels when the time is ripe. In functional conflict, communicators remain focused on one subject at a time.
Foresight vs. Short-sightedness.
Short-sightedness causes dysfunctional conflict because participants may be "winning a battle, only to lose the war." They may hold firm on a given issue and in the process damage the overall relationship.
Results of dysfunctional conflicts are that neither party gets what he or she was seeking; they threaten the future of the relationship; they are personally destructive.
Results of functional conflict are that it increases involvement, promotes growth in a relationship, provides a safe outlet for frustration and aggressiveness, and allows each person to establish her or his identity.
Styles of Conflict.
There are various styles that individuals adopt when engaged in conflict. The four steps are classified as non assertiveness, indirect aggression, direct aggression, and assertion.
Nonassertion. People may lack the skill or willingness to express thoughts or feelings. Some engage in avoidance because they believe it is easier to put up with the status quo than to face and solve the problem. Others may deal with conflict by accommodation, or giving in, putting their partner's needs ahead of their own. Sometimes either avoidance or accommodation is appropriate; however, when used inappropriately frustration, loss of self-respect, and risk of damaging the relationship may result.
Indirect Aggression. Indirectly aggressive people express their dissatisfaction in a disguised manner. Aggressive "crazymakers" use guilt-tripping, hinting, denial of intent, and nonverbal behavior to indirectly deal with conflict. Such approaches are often not effective, or cause irritation which may harm the relationship in the future.
Direct Aggression. People who are directly aggressive often overreact, and attack the source of displeasure. Such reactions result in equally combative and defensive reactions.
Assertion. People who are assertive express their thoughts and feelings directly and clearly, without judging or dictating to others.
There is no single "best" style of dealing with conflict. The key to success is to develop a repertoire of conflict styles so that when issues come up you will be able to choose the way of communicating that works best for the situation at hand.
Methods of Conflict Resolution. The best answer is to change conflict styles depending on the situation, the issue, and the people involved.
In win-lose situations, only one side is satisfied. In lose-lose situations neither side is satisfied. In win-win situations both sides are satisfied. In order for this final solution to work, the following steps are necessary:
1. Define your needs.
2. Share your needs with the other party.
3. Listen to the other person's needs.
4. Generate possible solutions.
5. Evaluate the possible solutions and select the best one.
6. Implement the solution.
7. Follow up the solution.