on the relational aspects of the conflict rather than on self-interest and having empathy for the other party. And finally, constructive conflict management is based on the belief that people will try to improve a negative situation if given a fair chance.
Conflict can be influenced by an array of antecedent conditions (Bunker et al, 1995). One condition is the physical context which includes such things as location, communication opportunities, and time limits. A second condition involves the social context which includes the number of disputants, openness to third-party intervenors or observers, expectations, relationships, and personality considerations. A third condition is the issue context which includes the number of issues in dispute and the sequencing of the issues.
A number of other factors can influence whether the process of conflict resolution will be constructive or destructive. Some of the factors discussed by Boardman and Horowitz (1994) include the nature of the relationship, the history and power differences between the parties, the perceived significance of consequences, how rigidly the issues are presented, the personal traits and characteristics of the parties, their gender and ethnicity, situational constraints, the inherent conflict management skills of the parties, the various conflict management strategies used, and the extent of diversity in values and attitudes between the parties.
Conflict Styles
Conflict styles are patterned responses that people use in conflict. They are similar to a personality style, although they can be changed. Conflict styles can be viewed as having two dimensions – assertiveness and cooperativeness. The assertiveness dimension reflects the extent to which we seek to satisfy our own needs while the cooperativeness dimension reflects the degree to which we attempt to satisfy others’ needs. Using these two dimensions, Thomas and Kilmann (1974) delineated five styles of conflict management, each representing a set of skills which would be useful in certain kinds of situations. Conventional wisdom, for example, recognizes that “two heads are better than one” (collaborate); it also says, “kill your enemies with kindness” (accommodate); “might makes right” (compete); “split the difference” (compromise); and “leave well enough alone” (avoid).
According to Thomas and Kilmann, individuals who compete are high on assertive and low on cooperative dimensions. Competitive individuals are able to stand up for their rights and defend positions they believe in. They often try to “win”. This style is useful when quick and decisive action is vital or when an unpopular course of action needs implementing, for example, in cost cutting or disciplinary situations. Accommodating individuals are usually unassertive and cooperative. People who accommodate often neglect their own needs in favour of others’ and have a tendency to yield their views. Accommodation is a useful style when parties in a conflict realize they are wrong, when the issue is unimportant, or when continued competition would damage either the cause or the relationship. Avoiding individuals are unassertive and uncooperative, and they typically either side step, postpone, or withdraw from conflict. An avoidance style is useful when the potential damage of continuing outweighs the benefits, when more important issues are pressing, or when it is important to reduce tensions in order to move forward. Compromising individuals are intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Their objective is to find an expedient solution which often involves splitting the difference. Compromising is a useful style when goals are only moderately important, when the expedition of a resolution is important, or when collaboration fails. Individuals who collaborate are both assertive and cooperative and attempt to work with the other person to find solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of all parties. Collaborating requires exploring the issues to find a creative solution. It is useful when merging insights from different perspectives is important, when concerns must not be compromised, or when commitment must be gained by incorporating other people’s views into a consensual decision. Both conflict management and mediation are collaborative processes.
Individuals who collaborate are both assertive and cooperative, and attempt to work with the other person to find solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of all parties.
People’s conflict styles often predict their behaviour and communication orientation when in a conflict situation. Individuals are capable of using all five conflict-handling styles. They tend, however, to rely on some modes more heavily than on others. Choosing a style for resolving a particular conflict depends on attitudes and philosophy about how conflict should be approached, on personal goals and relationships, and on the skills available to the people involved (Hocker and Wilmot, 1995:96).
The Conflict Resolution Continuum
People have various means with which to resolve their conflicts. Some approaches include avoidance, informal discussions, mediation, arbitration, judicial or legislative response, along with non-violent and violent action. Each of these options vary with respect to the formality, privacy, authority, people involved, and the amount of coercion exercised. Goldberg, Green, and Sander (1985) differentiate between primary dispute resolution processes and hybrid processes. Primary processes include adjudication, arbitration, mediation, and negotiation, while hybrid processes involve neutral fact-finding, mini-trial, med-arb, ombuds services, and private judging.
Conflict resolution methods can be placed on a continuum with respect to a number of characteristics which distinguish them from adjudicative processes. In the following diagram, those processes on the left give parties the most control, have the most flexibility and privacy, and are the least expensive. As the dispute resolution processes approach the right end of the continuum, the relevance of legal norms becomes greater while flexibility, privacy, and control become less.
In negotiation, parties seek to resolve a disagreement or plan a transaction through discussion and reasoned argument. The discussions may be conducted between the parties themselves or through representatives. In mediation, a neutral third party helps parties to resolve a dispute but does not have the power to impose a solution. Conciliation is similar to mediation, but the neutral acts as a “go-between” for the parties who never meet. Conciliation can also be defined as the process of bringing parties to a point where they can work out their dispute without the aid of a third party. In arbitration, the parties agree to submit their dispute to a neutral party whom they have selected to make a decision regarding the outcome of the dispute. An arbitrator’s decision can be non-binding or binding. Arbitration is used extensively in labour relations because it is less formal, faster, and less expensive than the judicial process. Adjudication is a formal process conducted by a judge or jury in a court of law. Decisions are reached on points of law, rather than on moral right or wrong.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) represents a move away from adjudicative methods of dispute resolution. Scimecca defines it as “those non-coercive processes which are alternatives to the formal legal or court system” (1993:212). The beginnings of ADR are usually traced back to the 1960’s in the United States and are rooted in a desire for harmony, efficiency, and access to justice. Advocates of ADR believed it would promote compromise over win-lose outcomes, replace confrontation with harmony and consensus, minimize state control, and empower communities to achieve harmonious resolutions to social conflicts. They sought to minimize the use of professionals in favour of substantive and procedural norms that were common-sensical and non-bureaucratic. In contrast to adjudicative processes, informal processes were to be private, voluntary, consensual, and focused on reconciling relationships.
Advocates of ADR believed it would promote compromise over win-lose outcomes, replace confrontation with harmony and consensus, minimize state control, and empower communities to achieve harmonious resolutions to social conflicts.
There are two interpretations
