Alex Colvin (Cornell), Dionne Pohler (Toronto), and I call this
“managing conflict at its sources.” In other words, to successfully resolve a
conflict or dispute, you must first understand its roots or sources, and then
appropriately match a dispute resolution method. So we’ve created a three-part
typology of the roots of conflict—specifically, structural, cognitive, and
psychogenic sources of conflict—to facilitate the identification of effective dispute
resolution methods tailored to the particular sources of a given dispute. These are described in my earlier blog posting, but brief definitions are useful
here. Structural sources pertain to nature of the parties’ relationship,
including their power, rights, and interlinked interests or goals. Cognitive sources
relate to mental functioning, including interpretation, perception, information
processing, decision-making, and (mis)communication. Psychogenic sources arise
from the psychology of feelings, especially emotions, moods, and personality.
We believe that it’s important to diagnose a conflict by
looking for these sources because they require different approaches to resolve
them. Resolving structural conflicts requires diagnosing the nature of the
parties’ relationship. Key alternatives include (i) a self-interested exchange
with accessible alternatives (egoist); (ii) lasting interdependence with a mutual
gains structure (unitarist); (iii) lasting interdependence with a mixed-motive
structure (pluralist); or (iv) lasting interdependence with a win-lose structure
(antagonistic). Recognizing these structural forms is important for factoring
in issues of power. In an egoist relationship, power is less important than
self-interest. If someone gives you a good deal, take it; if not, take your
next best alternative. In a unitarist relationship, a focus on power likely
interferes with finding interest-aligning policies. In contrast, power
differences are likely a significant aspect of an antagonistic relationship,
and distributive negotiations would be fully consistent in this structure.
Integrative bargaining is very difficult in an antagonistic structure. In a
pluralist relationship, both distributive and integrative negotiations are
likely, and the parties or third party dispute resolution actors would likely
need to ensure that power is not exercised in an overly aggressive way that
undermines the shared interests and enduring nature of the relationship.
The effectiveness of third party interventions also varies
across these relationship types. In an egoist relationship, the main need for
third party intervention is to adjudicate alleged violations of contractual
terms, which points toward arbitration-type procedures that provide a clear
determination. In a unitarist relationship, in contrast, the importance of mutuality
means that the arbitration of conflicts could be counter-productive;
rather, mediation-type interventions are most useful in helping the parties recognize
their mutual interests and resolve any coordination problems or barriers to
achieving the integrative potential inherent in their relationship. But in
antagonistic relationships, mediation efforts that search for common interests are incompatible with the fundamental oppositions of interests that drive conflict
in this structural form, and thus would likely be futile. By contrast, pluralist relationships are most open to
a range of interventions, including mediation- and arbitration-type third party
interventions, reflecting the diverse nature of distribution and integrative
issues inherent in this type of relationship.
Turning to the cognitive dimension, there are various
techniques to address perceptual differences rooted in contrasting cognitive
frames, such as a process of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing frames,
either with or without mediator assistance. Other interventions can explicitly
address cultural differences (more generally, in-group versus out-group
conflicts). Regarding conflicts that have an aspect of limited information
processing, people can more easily identify cognitive errors made by others
than themselves. Providing individuals training in decision-making biases and
teaching them critical thinking and self-awareness can help them become aware
of decision-making blind spots to work through this type of cognitive conflict.
Similarly, recognizing when miscommunication causes or contributes to a
conflict also points to specific conflict resolution strategies. This can include avoiding communication channels with low signal-to-noise ratios, listening for
the intended meanings of what’s being said, communicating in ways that the
listener will understand your intent and that reflects the listener’s
perspective, and establishing conditions under which an effective dialogue can
occur.
Psychogenic conflict is perhaps the most difficult type of
conflict to tackle, and again requires tailored dispute resolution strategies. This aspect of
conflict is not easily resolved through negotiation, nor is it likely to be
truly resolved by the imposition of a solution by a third party such as a
manager or an arbitrator. Indeed, the most accessible strategy is to give
people tools to work through their own emotions, or to control their moods in
different situations, either in advance of a conflict or during it. When
dealing with hot emotions, cooling strategies such as taking a time-out or a
break and trying to re-orient an individual’s attention to be more reflective
and self-distanced rather than self-immersed can facilitate problem solving. If
hot emotions like anger or humiliation
are contributing to a conflict, then facilitators can lessen these
emotions by acknowledging them. An understanding of how different personality
types approach not only conflict, but feeling, thinking, and behavior more
generally also can be useful to understand how to engage with others
constructively with others.
Lastly, not only might a dispute be complex (so don't stop after identifying the first cause), conflict can be dynamic and evolve around over time.
As such, the source(s) of the conflict can change in the midst of attempts to resolve
the initial source(s) of the dispute. This reinforces the need for those trying
to resolve disputes to understand the range of possible sources of conflict, so
that changes in the nature or sources of a particular dispute can be identified
and appropriately addressed, rather than inadvertently contributing to
compounding the conflict. In Parasite, the initial conflict between the wealthy
and poor families appeared economic in nature, but with greater personal
contact came new challenges that were more cognitive and especially psychogenic
in nature. To continue to treat this conflict as purely economic (structural)
and to ignore other smelly issues (another inside reference) would not produce
a lasting resolution to this conflict. To effectively manage conflict at
its sources is to recognize that dispute resolution needs to be tailored to the
specifics of each conflict based on a careful diagnosis of the possible
overlapping and changing structural, cognitive, and psychogenic dimensions.
Source: John W. Budd, Alexander J.S. Colvin, and Dionne Pohler (2020) "Advancing Dispute Resolution by Understanding the Sources of Conflict: Toward an Integrated Framework," ILR Review 73(2): 254-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919866817. [free access to the pre-publication version here]
No comments:
Post a Comment