Introduction
Robert Bacal has written several books and articles on conflict management. In his article, “Is Conflict Prevention the Same as Conflict Avoidance”, he attempts to clarify ideas of his book: Conflict Prevention in the Workplace. The article is written due to a misunderstanding of Conflict prevention by individuals who argue that conflict prevention is the same as conflict avoidance. This article is therefore an attempt to distinguish between Conflict Prevention and Conflict Avoidance (Bacal 1998, p. 1).
Summary
Bacal starts with a detailed explanation of how to deal with conflict in the workplace. He does so using two models: The Logical Conflict Management Approach and the Emotional models. The former is based on the assumption that people deal logically with conflicts. Several methods of handling conflict have also been given. These include avoidance, collaboration, power-based, compromise. Thus, people in conflict analyze situations leading to conflict and choose the best of the above methods. In this case, avoidance is as good as the other methods. Emotional models are based on the assumption that conflict is caused by emotions.
In this case, avoidance of conflict is said to be destructive since it leads to an escalation of the problem. Bacal then distinguishes between conflict avoidance and conflict prevention by defining the terms constructive and destructive conflict. He argues that destructive conflict is a conflict caused by emotions while constructive is based on issues. Thus, conflict avoidance is applied in destructive conflicts since they are difficult to solve and intervention could worsen the situation. On the other hand, conflict prevention is applied in issue-based conflict by ensuring that messages are communicated in a language that does not provoke emotions (Bacal 2004, p. 1).
Evaluation
The arguments of the author in this article are practically valid. For instance, if a conflict based on a person’s character and emotions occurs in an organization, the most obvious thing is to avoid it. This is because if the person is dealt with in an attempt to resolve the conflict, his emotions may be hurt leading to an escalation of the problem. Even if he pretends, he will just be suppressing emotions. Thus, the author describes ideas that are evidently practical.
However, the author does not base his analysis on any empirical evidence. His arguments are based on standard human behavior but not on actual evidence of human behavior from empirical analysis. This has substantially affected the credibility of his analysis. The article is, nevertheless, very valid and has arguments that are nothing less than logical and can never be disputed. Thus the author was successful in distinguishing conflict avoidance from conflict prevention and showing that those taking the two to be synonymous were wrong.
Conclusion
In as much as Bacal’s arguments do not have empirical evidence, their validity for use in solving organizational conflicts is unquestionable. Organizations that employ methods suggested by this article are likely to achieve a workforce characterized by healthy communication and fewer conflicts. This is because the distinctions between emotion-driven and issue-driven conflicts are very clear and the two must be dealt with differently in order to achieve desired results in situations of conflict. The article was therefore very useful in its intended purpose: refuting arguments by some organizational leaders that the ideas of conflict prevention in Conflict Prevention in the Workplace, could be taken as conflict avoidance.
Reference List
Bacal, R, (2004), “Is conflict prevention the same as conflict avoidance”. Web.
Bacal, R, (1998), “Conflict prevention in the workplace”. Web.