An introduction to dispute resolution

1. An introduction to dispute resolution A Brief History of Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution

2. As a skill • “That it is through conflict and sometimes only through conflict that we learn what our ends and purposes are.” Thomas B. Farrell Norms of Rhetorical Culture • The field of Dispute Resolution is an applied science and interdisciplinary in nature • Anthropology, sociology, psychology, law, political science, interpersonal and organizational communication, and peace studies

3. As a field • Theory based • Dispute resolution examines and develops answers to questions about how conflicts develop, escalate, and go unresolved. • Application (practice) • Dispute resolution develops and tests the usefulness of theoretical knowledge (praxis • Apply concepts, principles, big ideas, etc. as pragmatic resolutions of conflicts for the betterment of humanity • Aspires to… • Provides a mind-set about how human beings should attempt to solve their problems, improve conditions, and avoid senseless hostility and violence (26) • Pragmatic (how it is used…) • Processes offer techniques and tools for professionals or practitioners to resolve conflict, disputes, and form healthy partnerships

4. Historically • Initial question propelling conflict studies was simply, “was conflict beneficial for social change?” • Initially, Nineteenth –century founders of sociology focused on widespread social and political conflicts and sought to understand their origins, direction, and impact on society (i.e. Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, etc.) • As time goes on… • Law and legal studies the focus has been on the “case.” • Active conflict in which someone has been wronged, (formally) named it, and blamed someone for it. • Concrete nature of disputes and how the techniques to resolve them • Social science • Impact and affect of disputes and conflicts on society • Legal Realists • Investigated how in various situations disputes were formed and dealt with

5. Historically • Founding contributor • Mary Parker Follett (political scientists and social worker) • Attempt to categorize conflict and resolution • Philosophy driving integrative bargaining, problem-solving, and principled negotiation • Suggested that conflict has three forms of resolution • Domination—one disputant controls the outcome by force • Compromise—both parties meet in the middle, often giving up what they really value • Integration—both parties’ needs, wants, and objectives are met; conflict is used productively (win-win) • Saw friction as a “positive force” (15)

6. Historically • Legal Realists • Believed that the legal institutions (reflexive in nature) could be used to deal with many human social problems • 1940s through 1960s • Sociologists and social psychologists examined the social functions of conflicts during times of great conflict (American segregation, WW I and II, Vietnam, South African Apartheid-ANC vs. NP, etc.) • 1951 Morton Deutsch (considered the founder of modern conflict management theory) identified types of conflict management styles: competition and cooperation • 1984 Expanded by Joseph Folger (professor of communication at Temple University)

7. In Working Through Conflict Joseph Folger and his colleagues recommend that group members work on mastering styles of doing conflict. • These five styles reflect a dialectic tension between focusing on and asserting your personal goals and working cooperatively to achieve the group’s goal. • Avoidance • is when individual s are unable or unwilling to accomplish their own goals or contribute to achieving the group’s goal. Individuals who use this style may change the subject, avoid bringing up a controversial issue, and even deny that a conflict exists. Avoiding conflict is usually counterproductive. • Accommodation • is when group members give in to other members at the expense of their own goals. Accommodators want to get along with everyone. They believe that giving in to others serves the needs of the group. A group member who always approaches conflict by accommodating others may ultimately be perceived as being less powerful and have less influence in group decision making. • Competitive • occurs when disputants are more concerned with their own goals than with meeting the needs of the group. Competitive members want to win by all means. Approaching conflict competitively tends to divide group members into winners and losers. • Compromise • is a “middle ground” approach that involves conceding some goals in order to achieve others. When group members compromise, each member is willing to suffer some losses in exchange for gaining something else. • Collaborative • searches for new solutions that will achieve both the individual goals of group members and the goals of the group. The collaborative groups seeks creative solutions that satisfy everyone’s needs and interests. Collaboration promotes synergy and resolves the dialectic tension between assertiveness and cooperation.

8. Historically • Conflict Management continued… • Lon Fuller “process pluralism” • Developed primary perspective for dispute institutions and their “moral integrity” or legitimacy in dealing with different types of conflicts and disputes • Clear differences between the various dispute process ; should not be mixed because of different internal and external factors (18) • How facts are found, characters, involved opportune use of process , and who should be affected or bound by the outcome • Asserted that each dispute process has its own particular functional integrity • Mediation—best used when the parties are enmeshed in ongoing relationships (i.e. families, workplace) and relationship will continue • Arbitration—best used when parties have crafted rules of their own (i.e. collective bargaining agreements, commercial contracts, etc.) and need help enforcing their own private interests • Adjudication—necessary only when an authoritative and public decision of legal interpretation is required by the parties or by the larger society

9. Historically • 1980s—today Modern turn of dispute resolution theory to problem-solving • Explored barriers to productive conflict resolution • Consensus-building processes—inviting all those potential affected to negotiate outcomes together • Consensus building (collaborative problem solving or collaboration) is essentially mediation of a conflict which involves many parties. • Usually, the conflict also involves multiple, complex issues. • Examples of consensus building efforts include the international negotiations over limiting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to protect the ozone layer, or negotiations about limiting the emission of greenhouse gasses. • While consensus building is probably most often used in environmental disputes, it is applicable to many other kinds of public policy disputes as well at the community, state, and international levels.

10. Conclusion • Consensus building is usually carried out by a mediator or a facilitator. Often a team of intermediaries is involved. As with a mediator of two-party disputes, the mediator of a consensus building effort moves through a series of steps. • 1910 John Dewey’s “Reflective Thinking Method” • These include 1) participant identification and recruitment; 2) design of the process to be used (often involving the participants in this phase); 3) problem definition and analysis; 4) identification and evaluation of alternative solutions; 5) decision-making; 6) finalization and approval of the settlement; and 7) implementation. • At the outset the mediator tries to identify all of the parties who should be involved, and recruits them into the process. If some parties are left out or refuse to participate, this is likely to cause implementation problems at the end. • The mediator also usually proposes a process and an agenda, but gets the participants involved in a cooperate enterprise right away as they negotiate  the details of the process and agenda. This gives the participants a sense of control of the process. It also is a relatively easy way to give the disputants the sense that they can cooperate and effectively work together. • This starts to build trust between the disputants and the mediator, between the disputants themselves, and with the overall process.