Conflicts are an inevitable and, more importantly, an integral part of communication. As unpleasant as they are, these experiences in communication are still crucial to leaning the art of compromising, coming to terms and proving one’s point. Therefore, it is essential for both individuals and organizations to be able to approach a conflict from the right angle and find a viable solution to the problem, trying to satisfy all the stakeholders involved.
Identifying the key theoretical frameworks for the conflict management process, one must give credit to Marx’s concept of the Social Conflict Theory (Shakib, 2010). Outlining the key tensions between the ruling class and the inferior ones, Marx explained that the Capitalist environment creates the premises for a social clash. More to the point, Marx states explicitly that the given structure of society presupposes negligence towards the needs of the inferior class and, therefore, creates the factors leading to a major conflict.
Though doubtlessly profound and significant, Marx’s theory seems to have aged impressively and needs to be updated. As a result, a range of alternative theories have appeared over the past few decades. The key ones include the Feminist Theory, the Race-Conflict Approach, the Critical theory, the Post-Modern theory, etc. It should be noted, though, that, with all due respect to the specified theories, each of them focuses on a particular source of a conflict, therefore, narrowing the research field down to a specific type of demographics (Shakib, 2010).
Mapping the conflict is an efficient way of analyzing the key factors affecting the problem, as well as identifying the key approaches towards generating a solution. More importantly, a map can be viewed as a tool for identifying the factors that have caused the problem and, therefore, helping define the strategy that will lead to eliminating the root cause and, thus, solving the issue.
A closer look at the phenomenon in question will reveal that a conflict map works as a method of arranging the facts related to a particular problem in a specific order so that the links between these facts could become obvious and the roles of the parties involved in the conflict could be defined. As soon as the cause of the conflict is identified, a viable solution based on the map created is designed.
However, mapping the conflict can only be viewed as a method of defining the strategy for addressing the concern. As far as the approaches towards conflict management (CM) are concerned, five key methods of handling a specific issue are traditionally identified. As a rule, the CM styles mentioned above are viewed in the context of two key dimensions, i.e., assertiveness and cooperativeness (Mesko, Lang, Andrea, Szijjarto & Bereczkei, 2014); while four of the strategies to be specified below are the obvious extremes, the fifth one is the “golden mean.”
Avoiding, as one may guess easily, presupposes that the premises for possible conflicts should be detected and removed immediately; competing presupposes that the parties should pursue their own goals without the regard for the others’ needs and demands; accommodation, on the other hand, requires that the opponent should feel as comfortable as possible in the course of the discussion; compromising means locating the solution, which will be beneficial or, at the very least, neutral in its effect to all those involved; finally, collaboration demands that the parties involved should work together on identifying the possible solution and solving the emerging issues.
As hard and nearly impossible as the latter seems, it is often posed as the most reasonable approach to be undertaken, since it leads to a win-win situation for all those concerned and, therefore, an outstandingly positive effect on the relationships between the has-been opponents (Mesko, Lang, Andrea, Szijjarto & Bereczkei, 2014).
As far as the desirable conflict management strategies are concerned, it is traditionally suggested to use a mixed approach based on the specifics of the negotiation process, the characteristics of my opponent, and the required outcomes. As a rule, the approach based on cooperativeness is adopted; however, in order to pursue the interests of the company, a compromising approach is often utilised as well. Basically, the choice of the strategy depends on the key stakeholders involved; therefore, depending on whether collaboration with the opponents or the parties involved in the negotiation process is in the perspective, the choice of the strategy used for the conflict solving process may vary from the most assertive to the least assertive.
In addition, it should be born in mind that a conflict cannot be viewed outside of its context in general and the cultural environment in particular. For example, even though the competitive approach as a method of problem solving is infamous for triggering major problems, it is still viewed as a rather adequate method in the instances when time is of essence (Cingöz-Ulu & Lalonde, 2009). Likewise, when handling a particular misconception within a specific cultural setting, one must choose the conflict management strategy, which complies with the requirements of the setting in question.
For instance, in the low context communication styles, the approach presupposing a direct confrontation, i.e., competing, traditionally works well in the low-context communication processes (Cingöz-Ulu & Lalonde, 2009, p. 447). The same can be said about the negotiation process carried out in the intercultural environment (Cingöz-Ulu & Lalonde, 2009). The latter, in fact, seems to have become quite an issue over the past few years due to the globalization process; with the necessity for a range of companies to go global and to expand into the world market, the need for managing intercultural conflicts has emerged (Dreher, Gassebner & Siemens, 2010).
Hence, the process of globalism allowed for stretching the conflict theory to the point where it can be tailored to meeting the needs of a particular type of demographics, i.e., women, national and ethnic minorities, etc. (Olzak, 2011). On the one hand, the opportunities for reaching out for the social groups, which have been either neglected or oppressed for quite long, is a major step forward in identifying new methods and tools for communication and negotiation. On the other hand, the focus on specific scenarios may be seen as a retreat from the classic theory and, therefore, the refusal from creating an all-embracing approach, which could help explore the concept of a conflict as a phenomenon (Tindal, 2011).
Being a part and parcel of communication, conflicts must be approached from a rational perspective. In order to handle conflicts efficiently, one must bear in mind the key strategies of addressing interpersonal conflicts, therefore, developing their own unique approach towards conflict management. Once learning to confront the problem instead of avoiding it, one will be able to draw important lessons even from the experiences related to disagreement and conflicting situations, therefore, acquiring the basic diplomatic skills.
Reference List
Cingöz-Ulu, B. & Lalonde, R. N., 2009. The role of culture and relational context in interpersonal conflict: do Turks and Canadians use different conflict management strategies? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31: 443–458.
Dreher, A., Gassebner, M. & Siemens, L. H.-R. 2010, Globalization, economic freedom and human rights, Econstor, 115: 2–59.
Mesko, N., Lang, A., Andrea, C., Szijjarto, L. & Bereczkei, T. 2014. Compete and compromise: Machiavellianism and conflict resolution. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 19(1): 14–18.
Olzak, S., 2011. Does globalization breed ethnic discontent? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 00: 1–30.
Shakib, M. K., 2010. Marxist feminism and postmodernism. Journal of Language and Culture, 1(3): 28–34.
Tindal, L. S., 2011. Conflict resolution: cultural understanding imperative. The Journal of Value Based Leadership, 4(2): para. 1–24. Web.