Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution.
Committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of group (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs) and by engaging in collective negotiation. Dimensions of resolution typically parallel the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is processed.
Cognitive resolution is the way disputants understand and view the conflict, with beliefs, perspectives, understandings and attitudes. Emotional resolution is in the way disputants feel about a conflict, the emotional energy. Behavioral resolution is reflective of how the disputants act, their behavior. Ultimately a wide range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist, including negotiation, mediation, mediation-arbitration, diplomacy, and creative peacebuilding.Rapoport, A. (1989). The origins of violence: Approaches to the study of conflict. New York, NY: Paragon House.Rapoport, A. (1992). Peace: An idea whose time has come. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Definition and characteristics
Communication can be understood in a pragmatic or transactional way. There is a distinction between paraconflict, which is symbolic, and conflict, which is actions you can observe. Symbolic conflict is categorized as constructive or destructive, depending on the individual's emotional response to it. In contrast, action conflict is determined to be constructive or destructive based on how it functions within the system. Ruben viewed communication as continual and inevitable. Conflict refers to "the discrepancies between the demands and/or capabilities of the system and the demands and/or capacities of the environment." Conflict is a necessary process for a system to function, as adaptation in communication flows constantly; there is a strong correlation between adaptability and conflict.
Models
Modes
Ruble and Thomas transposed the managerial grid model in terms of conflict resolution. They adapted the classification scheme to dimensions identified in conflict research that represent a range of behaviors beyond the dichotomy between cooperation and competition. The X-axis evaluates cooperativity, the extent by which mutual goals are achieved. The Y-axis evaluates assertiveness, how parties insist on carrying their own objectives.
Thomas and Kilmann extended that grid with a rating system for five modes of behavior. When parties are assertive but their objectives lack compatibility, they become competitive; when parties are assertive toward compatible objectives, they can be collaborating; when no party prioritizes objectives that are mutually exclusive, they can display avoidance; parties can be accommodating when assertiveness is low but cooperativity is high; when there is no real bias toward assertiveness and cooperativity, compromising can obtain.
However, not every style leads to an acceptable result in every situation. For example, a collaboration does not work if the goals of the two conflict parties are immutable and mutually exclusive. The different styles have different advantages and disadvantages.Werner Fleischer, Benedikt Fleischer, Martin Monninger: Role and behavior profiles: Resolving conflicts constructively. Volume 4. Kohlhammer, 2022, ISBN 978-3-17-035778-5, pp. 114–121. Depending on the situation, different conflict styles can be considered desirable to achieve the best results.Paul Anker: Mastering Conflicts. Handbook for Scrum Masters in Agile Teams. Tredition, 2023, ISBN 978-3-347-98519-3.
Dual concern The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes individuals' preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two underlying themes or dimensions: concern for self (assertiveness) and concern for others (empathy). According to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. The intersection of these two dimensions ultimately leads individuals towards exhibiting different styles of conflict resolution. The dual model identifies five group conflict resolution styles or strategies that individuals may use depending on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals.
Avoidance Characterized by joking, changing or avoiding the topic, or even denying that a problem exists, the conflict avoidance style is used when an individual has withdrawn in dealing with the other party, when one is uncomfortable with conflict, or due to cultural contexts.For example, in Chinese culture, reasons for avoidance include sustaining a good mood, protecting the avoider, and other philosophical and spiritual reasonings (Feng and Wilson 2011). During conflict, these avoiders adopt a "wait and see" attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal involvement. By neglecting to address high-conflict situations, avoiders risk allowing problems to fester or spin out of control.
Accommodating In contrast, yielding, "accommodating", smoothing or suppression conflict styles are characterized by a high level of concern for others and a low level of concern for oneself. This passive pro-social approach emerges when individuals derive personal satisfaction from meeting the needs of others and have a general concern for maintaining stable, positive social relationships. When faced with conflict, individuals with an accommodating conflict style tend to harmonize into others' demands out of respect for the social relationship. With this sense of yielding to the conflict, individuals fall back to others' input instead of finding solutions with their own intellectual resolution.
Competitive The competitive, "fighting" or forcing conflict style maximizes individual assertiveness (i.e., concern for self) and minimizes empathy (i.e., concern for others). Groups consisting of competitive members generally enjoy seeking domination over others, and typically see conflict as a "win or lose" predicament. Fighters tend to force others to accept their personal views by employing competitive power tactics (arguments, insults, accusations or even violence) that foster intimidation.
Conciliation The conciliation, "compromising", bargaining or negotiation conflict style is typical of individuals who possess an intermediate level of concern for both personal and others' outcomes. Compromisers value fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-take interactions. By accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet them halfway, thus promoting conflict resolution. This conflict style can be considered an extension of both "yielding" and "cooperative" strategies.
Cooperation Characterized by an active concern for both pro-social and pro-self behavior, the cooperation, integration, confrontation or problem-solving conflict style is typically used when an individual has elevated interests in their own outcomes as well as in the outcomes of others. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with others in an effort to find an amicable solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. Individuals using this type of conflict style tend to be both highly assertive and highly empathetic. By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and resources into finding a "win-win" solution. According to the literature on conflict resolution, a cooperative conflict resolution style is recommended above all others. This resolution may be achieved by lowering the aggressor's guard while raising the ego.
Regret analysis The conflict resolution curve derived from an analytical model that offers a peaceful solution by motivating conflicting entities. Forced resolution of conflict might invoke another conflict in the future.
Conflict resolution curve (CRC) separates conflict styles into two separate domains: domain of competing entities and domain of accommodating entities. There is a sort of agreement between targets and aggressors on this curve. Their judgements of badness compared to goodness of each other are analogous on CRC. So, arrival of conflicting entities to some negotiable points on CRC is important before peace building. CRC does not exist (i.e., singular) in reality if the aggression of the aggressor is certain. Under such circumstances it might lead to apocalypse with mutual destruction.
The curve explains why nonviolent struggles ultimately toppled repressive regimes and sometimes forced leaders to change the nature of governance. Also, this methodology has been applied to capture conflict styles on the Korean Peninsula and dynamics of negotiation processes.
Four-sides In the third step, the actual conflict of interest is identified and mutual understanding for the interest of the other party is developed. This requires understanding and respecting the underlying values and motivations. According to the four-sides model by Friedemann Schulz von Thun, there are two levels of information in every statement: the content level and the emotional or relationship level. Both levels contain interests, the differences of which to the other conflict party should be balanced as much as possible. Then a win-win solution for the conflict can be developed together.
Circle of Conflict
Christopher W. Moore's "Circle of conflict" model, first published in 1986, emphasizes five sources of conflict: data: information, interpretation, incompleteness; relationship: personal dynamics, miscommunication, misbehaviors; value: incompatible beliefs, principles, or priorities; structure: organization failures, power imbalances, resource constraints; interests: needs, desires, incentives, procedures.
Conflicts may have multiple sources. Identifying the source of the conflict ought to facilitate its resolution.
Nonviolent communication (NVC)
Theories
Relational dialectics
The main concepts of relational dialectics are:
Contradictions – The concept is that the contrary has the characteristics of its opposite. People can seek to be in a relationship but still need their space. Totality – The totality comes when the opposites unite. Thus, the relationship is balanced with contradictions and only then it reaches totality Process – Comprehended through various social processes. These processes simultaneously continue within a relationship in a recurring manner. Praxis – The relationship progresses with experience and both people interact and communicate effectively to meet their needs. Praxis is a concept of practicability in making decisions in a relationship despite opposing wants and needs
Strategy of conflict Thomas Schelling applied game theory to situations where the outcome is not zero-sum.
Conflict is a contest. Rational behavior, in this contest, is a matter of judgment and perception. Strategy makes predictions using "rational behavior – behavior motivated by a serious calculation of advantages, a calculation that in turn is based on an explicit and internally consistent value system". Cooperation is always temporary, interests will change.
Ripeness
Mechanisms One theory discussed within the field of peace and conflict studies is conflict resolution mechanisms: independent procedures in which the conflicting parties can have confidence. They can be formal or informal arrangements with the intention of resolving the conflict. In Understanding Conflict Resolution Wallensteen draws from the works of Lewis A. Coser, Johan Galtung and Thomas Schelling, and presents seven distinct theoretical mechanisms for conflict resolutions: