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

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 institutionsit 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 Womens 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 Thoreaus 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 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

Characteristics of destructive agreements

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 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

Characteristics of constructive agreements

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 youre 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

are something you decided on what youre 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
Positions

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 others 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 others face

How

we save others 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 theyre met or as theyre frustrated

Prospective

goals goals

what you want as youre preparing goals that emerge during the conflict
shift as negotiation occurs can become destructive (esp. face) can be sacrificed (esp. topic)

Transactive

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
Flip a coin, lottery, use a 3rd party, I divide, you choose

Use a Fair Procedure

Agree to the principles first Not a way to strengthen your position a fair standard must be fair for both parties