Dynamics of Conflict

Conflict

Conflict is the process of any disagreement between two or more people or groups. Whenever
two or more people have incompatible interests, different values, goals, and understanding
conflict arises. It may arise within a person, within people, groups, or within organizations.
Conflicts are all those kinds of opposition or antagonistic interaction between individuals or
among groups that form some kind of friction, disagreement, or discord arising within them.

When the beliefs or actions of one or more members of a group are resisted by or unacceptable to
another group, conflict arises. It exists in such scenarios where one party perceives that another
party has hampered or might be able to hamper their accomplishment of goals.

Characteristics of Conflict

1. Conflict is a Process

Conflict is a process and occurs in layers. First is always the ‘layer of misunderstanding’. Other
layers are differences of values, viewpoint, interest, and even interpersonal differences.

Conflict is called a process because it begins with the first party perceiving the other party to
oppose or negatively affect its interests. This process ends with competing, compromising,
collaborating, or avoiding.

2. Conflict is Inevitable

Conflict exists everywhere. No two people are alike. Hence, they may have individual
differences. These differences may be because of values or otherwise, leading to conflict.
Conflict is inevitable and often for the good, and it can be minimized, diverted and/or resolved.

3. Conflict is a Normal Part of Life

Individuals, groups, and business organizations have unlimited needs and different values. Their
limited resources and incompatibility lead to conflicts. Conflict is not a problem if it is managed
properly.

4. Perception
Conflict must be perceived by the parties, otherwise it does not exist. What we perceive and
think affects our behavior, communication, and attitudes.

5. Opposition

One party involved in the conflict must be perceiving or doing something that the other party
does not like or want.

6. Interdependence and Interaction

Conflict must include some kind of real or perceived interdependence. Without interdependence,
there will be no interaction. Conflict will occur only when some kind of interaction takes place.

7. Conflict is Multidimensional

It comes in different ways in accordance with degree of capacity and seriousness. At times, it
may even improve difficult situations.

Types of Conflict

1. Intra-Personal Conflict (inside an Individual)

Intra-personal conflict arises within an individual, due to divergent goals and multiple roles, that
the individual is expected to play.

Goal conflicts arise when an individual faces the problem of choosing among many competing
goals. Role conflicts occur when the expectations of an individual’s role are materially different
or opposite and the individual can meet a particular expectation only at the cost of other
expectations. It might also occur due to role ambiguity. Role ambiguity occurs when an
individual is not clear about his duties and responsibilities.

2. Interpersonal Conflict (among individuals)

Interpersonal conflict occurs when two or more persons interact with each other. Such interaction
may take place between peers or between seniors and subordinates.

The conflict between them might arise due to differences in the choices made by them. It occurs
as a result of an individual’s inability to conform to the norms of the group.
The main causes of this conflict are – personality differences, perceptions, power and status
differences, clash of values and interests, scarcity of resources, etc.

3. Inter-Group Conflict

Such conflict occurs between two or more groups in an organization. Intergroup conflicts arise
for organizational causes rather than interpersonal purposes.

Conflicts between production and sales departments, between management and unions, are
examples of inter-group conflicts. The major reasons for such conflicts are competition for
scarce resources, task interdependence, joint decision-making, introduction to change, and
incompatible goals.

4. Inter-Organizational Conflict

This type of conflict arises between two organizations, as a result of business competition. Both
conflicting parties usually engage in providing similar types of products or services. As a result,
both parties become barriers to each other’s success.

Conflict management Techniques

The managers of a business organization should take careful steps to resolve conflicts, otherwise
organizational goals cannot be achieved in time, with the expected resources.

Managers should go for conflict stimulation, prevention, and resolution techniques. These are
considered the most effective conflict management techniques in the workplace.

1. Conflict Stimulation Techniques

Conflict stimulation are those intentional actions or techniques that are employed to escalate or
incite conflicts within organizations.

While conflicts are generally viewed as disruptive and undesirable, there are cases where
controlled conflict can also be beneficial for promoting innovation, creativity, and improved
decision-making processes.

The following four techniques are commonly used to stimulate conflicts:

a) Reorganizing
Restructuring organizational departments or units to introduce changes that create friction and
conflicting interests, which will disrupt established dynamics.

b) Communication

Encouraging transparent and open communication channels to foster diverse perspectives and
opinions, leading to clashes and disagreements.

c) Encouraging Competition

Introducing performance-based incentives and rewards that trigger conflict as individuals and
teams strive to outperform one another.

d) Bringing in Outsiders

Engaging external consultants or experts with fresh perspectives that will challenge existing
norms, thus leading to conflicts as individuals defend their positions and resist change.

2. Conflict Prevention Techniques:

In the workplace, conflict prevention techniques refer to proactive measures and strategies that
are employed to minimize the occurrence and intensity of conflicts. Rather than allowing
conflicts to escalate leading to disruption in the functioning of management, these techniques
identify potential sources of conflict and address them before they become major problems.

a) Superordinate Goals

Emphasize the shared objectives that encourage collaboration and reduce conflicts arising from
competing goals.

b) Reduce Interdependence

Restructure workflows and responsibilities to minimize reliance on conflicting parties, hence

reducing potential clashes.

c) Exchange of Personnel

Exchange individuals among conflicting groups to collaborate and promote understanding.

d) Liaison Group
Establishing a forum for ongoing communication and conflict resolution among the
representatives from conflicting parties.

3. Conflict Resolution Techniques

Conflict resolution is the process of addressing and resolving conflicts in a satisfactory and
constructive manner. It typically involves finding mutually agreeable solutions that will meet the
needs and interests of all the parties involved.

Here are four of the common conflict resolution techniques:

a) Problem-Solving

Problem-solving focuses on identifying underlying issues causing the conflict and working
collaboratively on finding a solution that satisfies everyone’s interests. This technique promotes
open communication, active listening, and exploration of creative alternatives

b) Accommodation

In this technique, one party is willing to yield to the other’s needs and preferences to resolve the
conflict. It emphasizes on maintaining relationships and prioritizing harmony over individual
desires.

c) Compromising

Compromising involves finding a middle ground where each party involved, gives up something
to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. This technique requires negotiation and willingness to
make concessions to reach a fair resolution.

d) Avoidance

In this case scenario, conflicts are temporarily set aside or avoided when the timing and
circumstances are not conducive to resolution. While avoidance may not, however, be a long-
term solution, it can surely provide a cooling-off period and allow for further reflection before
addressing the conflict.

The meaning of conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome of every organization and as such,
should be accepted. As every organization is composed of individuals having different values,
goals, and perceptions, conflicts are bound to arise. Hence, conflict is unavoidable, but need not
always be harmful. Under certain circumstances, it could even lead to innovative solutions to
problems.

Stages Of Conflict And Workplace Conflict Resolution

In today’s dynamic and diverse workplace environments, conflicts are an inevitable aspect of
human interaction. From differences in opinions to clashes of personalities, conflicts can arise for
a variety of reasons. However, the key lies in how conflicts are managed and resolved. Effective
conflict resolution is crucial for maintaining a harmonious work atmosphere and fostering
productive relationships among team members. In this blog post, we will delve into the five
stages of conflict and explore workplace conflict resolution strategies that can lead to better
understanding, cooperation, and overall success.

Stage 1: Latent Conflict

At the heart of every conflict lies a latent stage, characterized by underlying issues that have yet
to surface. These can include differences in values, communication breakdowns, or competing
goals. Recognizing latent conflicts early on is essential for preventing them from escalating into
more serious disputes. By fostering open communication and encouraging employees to voice
their concerns, organizations can address latent conflicts before they intensify.

Stage 2: Perceived Conflict

Perceived conflicts occur when individuals become aware of the issues at hand and interpret
them as potential threats or challenges. This stage is marked by increased tension and emotional
responses as individuals start to take sides and form opinions. It is crucial to encourage active
listening and empathetic understanding during this stage to ensure that perceptions are accurate
and that misinterpretations are minimized.

Stage 3: Felt Conflict

As the conflict intensifies, emotions run high, and individuals start to experience the conflict
more personally. Felt conflict is the stage where frustration, anger, and resentment may surface.
It’s important to create a safe space where employees can express their emotions without fear of
judgment. By acknowledging these feelings and addressing them constructively, organizations
can prevent conflicts from spiraling out of control.
Stage 4: Manifest Conflict

Manifest conflict is the point at which the conflict becomes visible to others. This stage is
characterized by overt actions such as arguments, disagreements, or even avoidance. Left
unchecked, manifest conflicts can lead to a toxic work environment, decreased productivity, and
strained relationships. To address this stage effectively, organizations should provide conflict
resolution training and mediating resources to help parties find common ground and collaborate
on solutions.

Stage 5: Conflict Resolution

The final stage of conflict is its resolution. This stage involves finding mutually acceptable
solutions to the issues at hand. Effective conflict resolution requires clear communication, active
listening, and a willingness to compromise. Encouraging parties involved to collaborate on
finding win-win solutions can lead to improved relationships, increased trust, and a stronger
sense of unity within the team.

Workplace Conflict Resolution Strategies

Now that we’ve explored the stages of the conflict, let’s delve into effective workplace conflict
resolution strategies:

1. Communication: Open and honest communication is the cornerstone of conflict

resolution. Encourage individuals to express their perspectives and concerns while
actively listening to others. These foster understanding and help identify common
ground.

2. Mediation: A neutral third party can often facilitate discussions and guide parties
towards resolution. Mediators can provide an objective perspective and help bridge gaps
between conflicting parties.

3. Collaboration: Encourage those involved in the conflict to work together to find

solutions. Collaboration promotes a sense of ownership and commitment to the resolution
process.

4. Empathy: Understanding the emotions and viewpoints of others is vital. Empathy creates
a supportive environment where individuals feel heard and valued.
 5. Negotiation: Finding a middle ground through negotiation allows parties to reach
compromises that satisfy their needs and interests.

Conclusion

In a diverse and ever-evolving workplace, conflicts are bound to arise. However, by

understanding the five stages of conflict and implementing effective conflict resolution
strategies, organizations can transform conflicts into opportunities for growth, collaboration, and
improved relationships. Prioritizing open communication, empathy, and mutual understanding
can pave the way for a more harmonious and productive work environment, benefitting both
employees and the overall success of the organization.

Conflict Escalation

Escalation refers to an increase in the intensity of a conflict and in the severity of the tactics used
in pursuing it. It is driven by changes within each of the parties, new patterns of interaction
between them, and the involvement of new parties in the struggle. In the conflict stage diagram,
it is the next step after conflict emergence that pushes the conflict up towards, eventually, a
hurting stalemate.

When conflicts escalate, more people tend to become involved. Parties begin to make bigger and
stronger threats and impose harsher negative sanctions. Violence may start, or if violence has
already occurred, it may become more severe and/or widespread as the number of participants
involved in the conflict increases, and a greater proportion of a state's citizens actively engage in
fighting.
Conflict theorists Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin list five changes that occur as a conflict
escalates.

1. First, parties move from light tactics to heavy tactics. Light tactics include such things as
persuasive arguments, promises, and efforts to please the other side. Heavy tactics
include threats, power plays, and even violence.

2. Second, the conflict grows in size. The numbers of issues in contention expands, and
parties devote more resources to the struggle.

3. Third, issues move from specific to general, and the relationship between the parties
deteriorates. Parties develop grandiose positions, and often perceive the other side as
"evil."

4. Fourth, the number of parties grows from one to many, as more and more people and
groups are drawn into the conflict.

5. Fifth, the goal of the parties’ changes from "doing well" to winning, and finally, to
hurting the other.

Under certain circumstances, escalation is a reasonable thing to do. Parties might, for instance,
intentionally escalate a conflict in order to pressure the other side, involve third parties, or rally
more people to their cause. At times, the more powerful party may not even see that a conflict
exists; they may think everything is "fine." Escalation may be necessary to get them to engage at
all in a discussion of how to make things better for the other side which is suffering from
oppression. This sort of constructive escalation can have positive effects and help move parties
toward a mutually beneficial relationship. Conditions that Encourage Escalation

Incompatible Goals:

Some conflict escalation is driven by incompatible goals. Many note that destructive social and
inter-personal conflicts always begin with the emergence of contentious goals of two adversaries.
If the parties do not see a possibility of finding a mutually beneficial solution, and one believes
that it has the power to substantially alter the aspirations of the other, it may try to bully the other
side into submission. As the adversaries begin to pursue their incompatible goals, they may issue
threats or otherwise attempt to coerce the opposing side into giving them what they want. Each
side typically believes that the other is driven by power and will increase its coercive behavior
unless it is prevented from doing so by greater coercion. But if one party is harmed or threatened
by another, it is more likely to respond with hostility. The greater number of issues in contention
and the more intense the sense of grievance, the more fuel there is to encourage escalation.

Identity and Moral Issues:

In many instances, the parties view each other as having relatively high aspirations or regard the
issues under dispute as ones that cannot be compromised. For example, matters regarded by
adversaries as being integral to their personal or collective identities are more prone to conflict
escalation. When faced with groups that exhibit radically different attitudes, values, and
behaviors, parties may feel criticized, demeaned, or threatened. Threats to identity tend to arouse
feelings of anger and fear, which can in turn fuel conflict escalation. Similarly, moral
conflicts often lead to conflict escalation because the opponent is viewed as wrong in principle
and not merely on the wrong side of some specific issue. Disputes involving ideological or moral
issues tend to attract more parties and be resistant to compromise.

Past Objections and Injustice

Past grievances, feelings of injustice, and a high level of frustration may also provoke escalation.
Hostility-driven escalation is typically caused by grievances or a sense of injustice, and may
ultimately be rooted in events of the distant past. One party feels that it has been treated unfairly
by its opponent, and angrily blames its opponent for the suffering it has endured. Deprivation,
inequitable treatment, and pain and suffering thereby lead to a desire to punish or injure the
other. If there are no "norms of redress" in place, the aggrieved party may feel compelled to
strike back in response to this perceived provocation. However, their feelings of anger and
frustration may lead them to overreact. And if their actions are seen as overly severe and exceed
the normative expectations of the other side, these actions may provoke outrage and simply
intensify the struggle.

Three Process Models

Various frameworks can be used to better understand the dynamics of conflict escalation. Pruitt,
Rubin, and Kim discuss three broad models of escalation: the aggressor-defender model, the
conflict-spiral model and the structural-change model.[20] Taken together, these three accounts
of what occurs during escalation can help to make sense of a wide variety of conflicts.

Aggressor-Defender Model

In the "aggressor-defender" model, the "aggressor" is viewed as having a goal that places it in
conflict with the "defender." The "aggressor" begins with mild tactics and moves on to heavier
tactics if the mild tactics don't work. The defender reacts, escalating its efforts in response to the
aggressor's escalatory actions. While this model reflects some cases of escalation, it suggests that
escalation moves simply in one direction, with the defender always reacting to the action of the
aggressor. In many cases, escalation is better understood as a circular process, in which each side
reacts to the other's behavior.

Conflict Spiral Model

According to the conflict-spiral model, escalation results from a vicious circle of action and
reaction. Because each reaction is more severe and intense than the action that precedes it, each
retaliation or defensive action in the spiral provides a new issue or grievance.[22] These
dynamics explain the movement from lighter tactics to heavier tactics, as well as the expansion
of issues in conflict. As the spiral rises, each party's list of grievances grows longer, producing a
growing sense of crisis.

Conflict spirals can be either retaliatory or defensive. In a retaliatory spiral, each party punishes
the other for actions it finds hurtful. Retaliation may be in response to events of the distant past,
or to the opponent's most recent atrocious acts. These events lead one party to blame the other for
harm suffered, and to desire punishment. Central to this desire for retaliation are feelings of
anger and the perceived need to "teach" the other a lesson. In addition, it is common for one
party to miscalculate the likely reaction of the other, and inadvertently commit acts that result in
further escalation. For example, one side may try to intimidate its opponent, and instead provoke
a harsh counteraction.

In a defensive spiral, on the other hand, each party reacts so as to protect itself from a threat it
finds in the other's self-protective actions. While retaliatory spirals are typically driven by blame
and anger, defensive spirals are driven by fear. Though one side may simply wish to protect
itself, its actions may be perceived as threatening by its opponent. One example of this sort of
spiral is the arms race. (This is called the security dilemma and is discussed in the essay on
security.)

Structural Change Model Finally, according to the structural-change model, the experience of
conflict and the tactics used to pursue it produce residues that affect and change the parties and
communities involved. As a fight escalates, the means of waging it become more and more
removed from the substantive issues that first gave rise to conflict. The psychology of the
adversaries, as well as the relationship between them, undergoes fundamental changes. These
enduring structural changes encourage further contentious behavior and fuel escalation. Thus, the
structural-change model has the unique ability to explain why escalation tends to persist and
recur.

Psychological Dynamics

Escalation is both a cause and a result of significant psychological changes among the parties
involved. In addition to anger and fear discussed above, negative attitudes, perceptions,
and stereotypes of the opponent can drive escalation, as well as being caused by it (another
spiral). Parties have a tendency to blame the other side for any harms suffered, and want at least
restitution, if not retaliation. They may also form ideas about the dispositions, basic traits, and
motives of the other side. For example, each side may believe that the other is fundamentally
selfish, unfriendly, and hostile to its welfare. As a result, actors often come to regard revenge and
punishing the other side as an end in itself. Discussions about substantive issues and grievances
give way to personal attacks upon the other.

This process of selective perception is further enforced by attributional distortion. Once one
party has formed preconceptions about the other, any information that supports this hypothesis
will be attributed to the opposing side's basic disposition. Any observations that do not fit their
expectations, such as friendly behavior, will be attributed to situational causes or regarded as a
fluke. As a result, there is almost nothing that the opponent can do to dispel the party's negative
expectations. These negative evaluations allow parties to rationalize their own hostile behavior,
which simply intensifies the conflict.

Selective perception is likewise reinforced by self-fulfilling prophecies. One party's negative

views about the other may lead that party to behave in hostile ways towards its opponent. This
typically evokes a hostile response from the opponent, and in effect prods the opponent to
behave in ways that fulfill the party's initial expectations.[36] In this way, parties' worst
suspicions of each other lead them to act in ways that confirm their negative views.

Changes in Relations

After conflict has begun, the relations between the adversaries change in certain fundamental
ways. In light of the psychological changes discussed above, their interaction becomes
contentious, the number of issues in contention expands, and the parties become polarized. The
adversaries become increasingly isolated from each other, and their harsh actions tend to
reinforce each other's negative stereotypes.

Development of hostile goals increases the divergence of interest among parties. As one side
imposes negative sanctions upon another, any harm suffered become new issues of contention.
New issues come to the fore as a result of each side's desire to defeat the other. The number of
issues in conflict is likely to expand, and deep conflicts over values may surface.
Legitimate distrust develops among the adversaries, and what might otherwise be a relatively
minor issue takes on great symbolic significance.

As a result of escalation, formerly neutral or moderate parties are pulled toward one side or the
other, and communities become severely polarized. Third parties who would otherwise urge
moderation and attempt to mediate the controversy disappear and are forced to take sides.[41]
Such polarization further reduces the opportunities for communication and contributes to the
general deterioration of the relationship between the adversaries.

Parties may also begin to deindividuate persons from the opposing side. Through
deindividuation, persons come to be seen as members of a category or group rather than as
individuals. This state of mind makes it easier for parties to take more severe measures against
their opponents and to view them as less than fully human. In some cases, parties humiliate their
enemies to make them appear less than human, and thus further justify their degradation.

This process of dehumanization makes any moral norms against harming other human beings
seem irrelevant. Those excluded from moral norms can be viewed simply as inferior or as evil,
perverted, or criminal. Harsh and violent action not only becomes psychologically plausible, but
also may seem necessary. There is a disengagement of morals, and restraints against harming or
exploiting certain "kinds" of people are reduced. This can lead to severe violence, human rights
violations, sometimes even genocide.

Group Dynamics

Internal changes that groups undergo during escalation include not only the social-psychological
changes discussed above, but also changes at the group or collective level. Dynamics at the
individual level are often accentuated by collective discussion and tend to become group norms.
Collective goals of defeating the enemy develop, as well as increased group cohesiveness. Once
people realize that others share their views and hear new arguments favoring them, their own
perceptions are validated and reinforced. Group discussion can in this way cause individual
members to become more extreme in their hostile attitudes. The number of moderates in the
group thus begins to diminish as more and more people come to hold extreme views.

The development of group solidarity, or cohesiveness, can likewise contribute to escalation.

Many note that groups with little internal diversity tend to escalate conflicts rapidly. This is in
part because cohesiveness encourages conformity to group norms and strengthens negative
perceptions among group members. With group cohesiveness also comes heightened
commitment to the goal and a stronger conviction that is attainable. Individuals typically become
more invested in the conflict, and look to other members of the group to justify their violence
and reinforce their beliefs. Without a diversity of views, no one questions the advisability of
extreme actions. This may also contribute to an effect whereby groups become convinced that
glorious victory is assured and attempt to mobilize the community for conflict.

Finally, the involvement of other parties may increase a group's capacity to escalate conflict.
Outside parties may see an opportunity to gain some benefit or weaken an old enemy if they join
the conflict. In other cases, parties will join a struggle out of obligation to their friends or allies.
They may become directly engaged, or simply provide weapons or extra funds. Such aid often
enables combatants to escalate their level of fighting. During the Cold War, for example, many
local conflicts were exacerbated by the larger conflict between the USSR and the United States.
Each superpower would lend support to its favored side and thereby provide more fuel for local
conflict.
These changes among individuals, groups, and communities result from prior escalation and
contribute to further escalation. Once these transformations have taken place, escalation tends to
persist and recur, and there is lasting damage to the relationships between the parties. In order to
limit the destructive effects of escalation, parties must find a way to limit or reverse this process.
Strategies to limit escalation or de-escalate conflict are needed and are discussed at length in the
essays on those topics.

Conflict Goals

Have you ever been in a conflict or disagreement that ended up feeling like an extended game of
tug-o-war? When we experience conflict, it can feel like each person is pulling in a different
direction related to our own needs and goals. When we experience conflict in our relationships,
the strife is generally related to one of four goals: content, relational, identity, and process.
Identifying the underlying source of your conflict can help you understand your own needs as
well as help you empathize with others.

Content Goals
Content or topic goals refer to what we want and need for both our day-to-day and long-term life.
These goals tend to feel tangible and concrete, and they can center on issues such as how we
spend our money and our time, as well as how we live day-to-day. For example, Julie was really
upset with her husband, Todd, because of how he squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube. She
liked to squeeze the toothpaste from the end of the tube and her husband squeezed the tube
where he grabbed it. This one little conflict turned into a major battle of wills and revealed
deeper relational and identity issues.

Relational Goals

Relational goals refer to our preferences for what we would like our relationships to be like.
Relational goals center on issues like who we are to each other, what is the power distribution in
the relationship, and what our future looks like. Relational goals can become a source of conflict
when people have different expectations about the relationship or there is uncertainty about the
relationship. For example, the digital world has created many new terms and acronyms for dating
and relationships. DTR means “define the relationship.” When individuals use this term, it means
that they would like to have a conversation about the direction of their relationship. Are we just
friends, are we FWB (friends with benefits), or are we a couple? Negotiating who we are to each
other can become a major source of conflict in interpersonal interactions.

Identity Goals

Identity goals refer to the image we would like to present to the world. Conflict over identity
goals can occur when our public image is threatened and when we do not feel valued in an
interaction, relationship, or specific setting. To illustrate, consider Emma’s personal story.

When I was 20 years old, I fell in love with a woman for the first time. Mia, my girlfriend, was
so much more confident than me and already proudly out with her family and friends. She
encouraged me to tell my family, but honestly, I was scared. My mom is deeply religious, and
my father said more than once he would never walk his daughters down the passageway unless it
was to marry a man. I wanted Mia and my family to love me for who I am, but I was not ready to
come out to my family. I felt like I was either going to lose Mia or be dropped by my family.
When I finally came out to my family, I had the love and support of my mom and sisters. My dad
first threatened me to get over it or move out, but thankfully my mom stepped helped smooth
things over (Emma, student, age 25).

Process Goals

Process goals refer to our ideas about how we should communicate about and resolve conflicts.
For example, some people believe that it is best to not go to bed angry, but others may believe
that if you sleep on it, you will feel better in the morning. In addition to trying to solve conflicts,
people in these situations also need to negotiate the best time to try and resolve issues. Process
goals can have deeper cultural and social meanings that shape our perceptions of appropriate
conflict management. Some cultures may rely on authority rule, while other cultures place value
on equal participation. For example, while the US government has been characterized by
division and animosity, Native American tribal governments are communal and based on
reaching consensus with their membership (Alvarez, 2011).

Conflict Outcomes

In most professional sporting events in the United States, we celebrate winners and do what we
can to not be a loser. This approach to conflict can translate into our relationships when we
attempt to “win at all costs." Conversely, in the Japanese Professional Baseball League games
can end in a tie. A tie is considered almost as good as a win and will not hurt a team’s record.
These different approaches to winning help illustrate different outcomes to conflict. Conflict
outcomes refer to the possible ways a conflict is solved and how the people involved perceive the
results. Game Theory uses the metaphor of winning and losing games to help show distinct ways
conflict can be resolved (Spangler, 2003). According to Game Theory, when we negotiate
conflict there are three potential outcomes: win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose. Understanding the
different conflict outcomes can help you to recognize some of your own conflict patterns and
give you insight into how you may approach conflict in the future.

Win-win: A win-win outcome occurs when both parties in the conflict are satisfied with the
outcome. The win-win approach to conflict usually involves collaboration and problem-solving,
in combination with assertive, honest communication.

Win-lose: A win-lose outcome occurs when one party in the conflict gets what they want, and
the other party is left to feel they were defeated. This approach to conflict is characterized by
competition or a belief that only one side in the conflict can win. While win-lose is appropriate in
some situations, the disadvantage to this approach is that if one party in a relationship is always
on the losing end, they can become discouraged and dissatisfied in their relationship.

Lose-Lose: A lose-lose outcome occurs when neither party achieves their goals or both parties
are unhappy with the conflict outcome. Many examples can be considered lose-lose, such as an
employee quitting a job they love, with employers who appreciate them, because they can’t
resolve the person's work-from-home request, or a couple who love each other very much but
break up because they can’t agree on a timeline for their future. Clearly, these outcomes do not
sound ideal (Barwick-Snell & Walker, 2017).

To better understand conflict outcomes, consider the case of Maya, a recent graduate of the
California State University system. Before graduation, Maya submitted applications to several
different companies. She was thrilled when she was offered her dream job at a gaming company.
However, when she sat down to discuss the details with Human Resources, she was offered a
lower position with less pay than originally promised. What would you do if you found yourself
in a comparable situation? Would you reject the job altogether, feeling like it was a case of bait
and switch? This would be a lose-lose outcome, because Maya would lose out on her dream job
and the company would lose a talented employee. Would you accept the company’s terms and
ask how to move up quickly into the promised position? This would create a win-lose outcome,
where Maya would lose out on what the company originally promised, and the company would
get a short-term win by saving money. Would you make a counteroffer to the company,
reminding them of the position and salary that was originally offered? In this case, Maya made a
counteroffer that was accepted by the company, leading to a win-win outcome.

here is not one conflict outcome that will suit all situations. Conflict outcomes depend on the
topic, the situation, and the people involved. It is important to consider how much you value the
relationship and what is at stake with the conflict. Is it a lifelong relationship? A professional
relationship? Casual? Often figuring out how much you value the relationship will inform the
conflict outcome. Your style of conflict management can also shape the conflict outcome.

Conflict Transformation Definition

Imagine stepping into a situation where tensions are high, and the usual approach is either to
squash the dispute quickly or just manage the fallout. The term conflict transformation redefines
these scenarios. Instead of merely putting a lid on the conflict or navigating through it with
minimal damage, this approach delves into the heart of the issue, aiming to understand and
address the underlying causes and dynamics. It’s about transforming the very fabric of the
conflict to foster long-term peace and understanding.

Key Elements of Conflict Transformation

Conflict transformation is integral to achieving long-lasting peace and improving human

relationships. Here are the key elements involved:

1. The Presenting Situation: This is the visible part of the iceberg-the immediate conflict
that everyone notices.

2. The Horizon of the Preferred Future: This involves envisioning a future where the
conflict does not exist or exists in a healthier, more manageable form.

3. Development of Change Processes: The strategic actions taken to connect the current
conflict with the envisioned future, aiming for a transformative resolution that addresses
deeper systemic and relational issues.

Differences Between Conflict Transformation, Conflict Resolution, and Conflict

Management
While conflict resolution and conflict management are terms often used in conjunction, they
differ significantly from conflict transformation. Conflict resolution: The term conflict
resolution focuses on identifying a solution to end the conflict, prioritizing immediate remedies
and often overlooking deeper issues.

• Conflict management: Aims to control or stabilize the situation without necessarily

resolving it, often maintaining a status quo that avoids deeper engagement with the
conflict’s root causes.

• Conflict transformation: Looks beyond these approaches by addressing the systemic

and relational aspects of conflict, aiming not just to resolve or manage but to change the
underlying structures that led to the conflict.

Conflict transformation is crucial because:

1. Addresses Root Causes: This approach dives deep into the causes of conflict rather than
just the symptoms. Focusing on the causes and dynamics that sustain conflict aims to
create more permanent and positive changes.

2. Considers Cultural Patterns: Conflict transformation considers the cultural contexts

and patterns that may perpetuate conflict, making the resolution process more
comprehensive and sensitive to the nuances of each situation.

3. Views Conflict as Dynamic: Unlike traditional methods that may view conflicts as
isolated incidents to be resolved and forgotten, conflict transformation sees them as part
of a continuum within human relationships. This perspective allows for more sustainable
and constructive handling of disputes.

4. Fosters Growth and Innovation: By transforming conflict into a learning process,

individuals and communities can discover new possibilities and solutions that weren’t
apparent before. This can lead to innovation and growth both at personal and community
levels.

5. Turns Challenges into Opportunities: Conflict transformation reframes potentially

destructive situations into opportunities for systemic change and personal development,
thus contributing to more resilient and understanding communities.
Pollack Peacebuilding Systems’ Approach
At Pollack Peacebuilding Systems, the approach to conflict transformation goes beyond
traditional dispute resolution techniques. Our methods are tailored to address not just the surface-
level issues but the underlying causes of conflict, fostering a culture of mutual understanding and
building peace within organizations for long-term harmony.

Customized Conflict Intervention

Pollack Peacebuilding Systems doesn’t believe in a one-size-fits-all solution. Each scenario is
uniquely assessed, and strategies are customized to fit the specific needs of the organization. This
bespoke approach ensures that interventions are relevant and effective, dealing with conflicts at
their core.

Comprehensive Training Programs

Our conflict resolution training in the workplace equips employees with the skills needed to
handle interpersonal disputes effectively. The training is designed to improve communication,
enhance human relationships, and build peace within teams. This involves coaching, workshops,
and practical exercises that mirror real-life scenarios, making the learning process both engaging
and applicable. Through these activities, participants can learn from examples of workplace
conflict, understand various conflict dynamics, and learn how to address them constructively.

Ongoing Support and Development

We are committed to long-term results. We provide ongoing coaching and follow-up sessions to
ensure that the practices and principles of conflict transformation are deeply integrated into the
organization’s culture. This continuous engagement helps prevent future conflicts and maintains
a healthy, productive work environment.
Services Offered by Pollack Peacebuilding Systems

At Pollack Peacebuilding Systems, we offer a variety of services designed to foster conflict

transformation within your organization. Our aim is not just to resolve conflicts but to transform
them into opportunities for growth and improved relationships.

Mediation and Peacemaking Programs

We provide in-depth mediation services that begin with one-on-one interviews to understand the
perspectives of each party involved. This is followed by facilitated dialogues designed to
reconcile differences and form productive paths forward.

Training and Workshops

Our training programs are tailored to the needs of your organization, whether they’re delivered
online or in person. We focus on equipping your team with essential conflict management and
resolution skills.

• Understanding the roots of conflicts.

• Applying practical resolution strategies.

• Enhancing communication skills for better teamwork and collaboration.

Follow-Up Coaching

Post-resolution, we offer continuous support and coaching to ensure the sustainability of the
solutions implemented. This ongoing engagement helps maintain peace and prevents future
conflicts by reinforcing the skills and strategies learned during training sessions.

Organizational Assessments & Culture Optimization

We also conduct organizational assessments to identify areas of potential conflict before they
escalate. Our aim is to optimize your workplace culture for better communication, employee
satisfaction, and overall efficiency.

Transform Conflicts into Opportunities with Pollack Peacebuilding

At Pollack Peacebuilding Systems, we understand the unique challenges and opportunities

presented by conflict in the workplace. Whether it’s through conflict management, resolution, or
transformation, our goal is to turn challenging interactions into chances for growth and
improvement.Reach out to us, and let’s collaboratively turn your workplace challenges into
avenues for innovation and stronger relationships. Contact Pollack Peacebuilding Systems today
and empower your organization through effective conflict management and resolution strategies.