340 likes | 1.4k Views
Definition of Conflict. “Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals , scare resources , and interference from others in achieving their goals.”. Burton – Human Needs.
E N D
Definition of Conflict “Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceiveincompatible goals, scare resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.”
Burton – Human Needs • Burton says that conflict stems from unsatisfied human needs • In conflict, people represent their interests, but not their underlying needs; however, they will use power and coercion to meet those needs
Galtung – Structural Violence • Inequalities embedded in the social structure lead to violence and conflict. • Unless those underlying inequalities are solved, then violence will continue • Prime example is lower-class people dying because health care resources are granted to the upper-class
Coser – social function of conflict • Conflict is not always dysfunctional for the relationship within which it occurs; often, conflict is necessary to maintain such a relationship • Conflict not only generates new norms, new institutions…it may be said to be stimulating directly in the economic and technological realm. • If Coser is correct, and conflict serves a socially useful function, then should conflicts be resolved?
Game Theory • Zero-sum game • fixed pie • People assume that they can either win or lose. • If I win a quarter, they lose a quarter – the sum is always zero • you give up nothing, because it means the other side wins what you give up
HISTORY • Social movements: • Gandhi and nonviolence – movement to free India of British Rule • Women’s suffrage movement, 1848-1920 • Lech Walesa and Solidarity in Poland • Nelson Mandela/Desmond Tutu and the movement against Apartheid in South Africa • Based off each other, and off Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience.”
HISTORY • Thoreau said: • Two times when open rebellion is justified: • when the injustice is no longer occasional but a major characteristic • when the machine (government) demands that people cooperate with injustice. • Thoreau declared that, “If the government requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”
Escalation of conflict • Conflicts escalate in both scope and severity • Conflicts can escalate constructively or destructively
Destructive Conflict • Characteristics of destructive escalation • parties become less flexible • goals are narrowly defined and rigid • primary goal is to defeat the other party – assumes the other side must lose • becomes protracted and intractable • Characteristics of destructive agreements • damages relationships • promotes inequality & power imbalance • outcomes are imposed unilaterally • often requires redress or revenge • outcomes are often oppressive to one side • DOES NOT SOLVE UNDERLYING CAUSES
Constructive Conflicts • Constructive conflicts are not the absence of destructive elements • Characteristics of constructive escalation • interaction changes often • flexible goals/objectives • guided by belief that all parties can win • Characteristics of constructive agreements • strengthens relationships • restores equality • recognizing the other parties as legitimate • using benefits/promises rather than threats/coercion • find mutually acceptable solutions • Conflict is actually solved
Conflict Continuum • Negotiation is at the bottom because negotiation theory is the base for all forms of conflict resolution (mediation, arbitration, even diplomacy)
Negotiation Theory • Positional Negotiation • Positions are the stance you take and your proposed solution • “I want $3,000 for this car” • “Stop taking my stuff – you have to ask me first.” • Positions are your statements of what you’re willing to give • Positional negotiation starts with two positions and attempts to find a middle ground between them, or barter until one party gives in to the other position.
Positional Bargaining • Hard vs. Soft positional bargaining • Hard bargaining – make threats, damage relationships, demand concessions from other party, goal is victory, search for one answer you will accept, apply pressure • Soft bargaining – you get taken, sacrifice your needs for relationship, trust other party, disclose your bottom line, try to win friends, search for an answer they will accept
Principled Negotiation • 1. Separate People from Problems • 2. Focus on Interests not Positions • Topic interests/goals • Relational interests/goals • Identity or Face interests/goals • Process interests/goals • 3. Invent solutions for mutual gain • 4. Insist the result be based on some objective criteria
Separate people from problems • Negotiators are people first • every party in a negotiation has emotions and ego, and can have misunderstandings • The relationship needs to be taken into account in all negotiations • Perceptions – does truth matter? • understand their perceptions to come up with better solutions • Emotions – the higher the stakes, the higher emotions run • Communication – all negotiations have misunderstandings
Negotiation Interests not Positions • Positions are something you decided on – what you’re demanding as a solution • Interests are what got you there • For every interest, there are several positions you could take, and vice-versa • To negotiate interests, identify them • ask why? what are they getting from position • ask why not? what are they not getting • most common interests are needs-based
Types of Interests • T.R.I.P. • Topic, relational, identity/face, process • Topic and Process interests • external, negotiable, substantive, tangible, expressed • Relational and Identity interests • internal, non-negotiable, usually not expressed aloud, intangible (values) • DRIVE all conflicts
Topic and Process Goals • Topic interests: • what do we want? what are we fighting for? • either both parties have the same goal, or both parties have opposing goals • Process interests: • what communication process will we use? • process goals appear when low-power party cries unjust process or unfair fight
Relational Goals • Who are we to each other? • How will we be treated? • How much influence do we have over the other? • How interdependent are we? • At the heart of all conflicts, but rarely articulated • Relational goals must be met in order to solve underlying issues
Face or Identity Goals • Who am I in this conflict? • You can save or damage your own face or the other’s face • If face is destroyed, it must be restored (saved) before any other conflict goal can be addressed • When face is damaged: • people dig into their positions • creates losers who “get back at you” next time
Ways to restore face • How we save our own face: • rationalize actions • claim unjust intimidation • dig into our position • damage other’s face • How we save other’s face: • help increase their self-esteem • avoid giving orders or directives • listen carefully and legitimize their concerns • No one wants to look like the loser
More about types of interests • Interests overlap • all conflicts have multiple goals • relational and identity goals are always present • different goals have primacy • parties in conflict rarely have same goals with same primacy • Interests are disguised • relational and face goals are presented as topic and process goals
More about interests • Goals/Interests change • goals change as they’re met or as they’re frustrated • Prospective goals • what you want as you’re preparing • Transactive goals • goals that emerge during the conflict • shift as negotiation occurs • can become destructive (esp. face) • can be sacrificed (esp. topic) • Retrospective goals – set up for next time
Invent Solutions for Mutual Gain • Easiest solution in a negotiation is to split the difference between the positions • In order to have more options to choose from, you need more solutions • Brainstorm • Broaden your options • shuttle between the specific and the general • invent options of differing strength • change scope • Make a bigger pie (game theory) • look for shared interests and goals • split differing interests • Turn it into reaching a common goal
Insist on Objective Criteria • Use a “Fair Standard” • market value, such as “blue-book value” • professional standards • precedent • scientific judgment • Use a “Fair Procedure” • Flip a coin, lottery, use a 3rd party, “I divide, you choose” • Agree to the principles first • Not a way to strengthen your position – a fair standard must be fair for both parties