Confrontations between Two or More People - Essay Example

? Conflict process analysis Introduction Human beings are social by nature and tend to be affected by the nature of the relationships that they forgewith people surrounding them. In the various associations formed, groups are created and people belonging to a specific group behave in a particular way towards members of their own group, and in a different manner with other members from other groups. Such groups at a basic level may comprise of relationships between family members, friends and acquaintances, or colleagues at work places (interpersonal, inter-organizational or intergroup). Within the framework of such socially constructed groups, there may be disagreements between members with varying needs, objectives or beliefs, which may lead to conflicts. Within a larger framework, groups relate to regional, national or even international levels, where such conflicts if not managed well, may even lead to a full-scale war. Conflicts are confrontations between two or more people having opposing requirements, ideals, notions, faiths, or objectives. Conflict between human beings is unavoidable and pervasive. However, the outcome not being predetermined, it can be altered to arrive at a peaceful resolution. If a conflict is kept unchecked, it can escalate to produce results that may be destructive or even non-productive. Conflict analysis and management is thus an integral part in maintaining strong and productive interpersonal relationships amongst family members, within colleagues in an organization, and even between nations. While it is difficult to exactly delineate conflict, most of existing definitions include two factors: for a conflict to occur there must be at least two groups working/interacting with each other, and there must be some perceived sense of an incompatibility between the groups (Kuhn & Poole, 2000). A.W. Green defined conflict as “the deliberate attempt to oppose, resist or coerce the will of another or others” (cited in, Bhattacharya, 2008, 64). Two other definitions of conflict frame it as the “the interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities” (Rahim, 1992, 16), or as the “process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party" (Wall & Callister, 1995, 517). In the context, that “a conflict is life as usual” (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 3) and hence inevitable between human relationships the process must be studied in order to control and effectively manage it and produce beneficial outcome (especially for those looking to work within organizations where working would involve teamwork) this paper will analyze the process of conflict analysis. It will examine a recent interpersonal crisis that occurred in the researcher’s life (pertaining to the divorce case between my ex-wife and me) and is especially important, as it allows me and the reader both, to comprehend whether during the entire process our confrontation went out of control, and whether in future I should seek a better route while dealing with interpersonal conflicts, in personal life or at workplace. This paper will analyze a conflict situation using various conflict theories and conflict management processes (from a Christian perspective), to derive that negotiation through effectiveness communication and mediation, anger control and forgiveness helps to achieve beneficial results for the disputants, without the members having to resort to physical violence. Discussion 1. Description of the situation Who was involved?- In any relationship when there are two or more interdependent people conflicts tend to occur when relationship rules are not adhered to and there is lack of sincere explanation to explain the rule break (Webster, MLOS561- conflict and negotiations in organizations, Slide 14). Due to the break in relationship rules, there arises incompatibility, which may lead to adverse effects on the relationship, and if the problematic situation is not handled appropriately, the entire scenario tends to create emotional residues, which lead to dissatisfaction within the relationship. Problematic situation arises “when partners perceive that they seek different outcomes or they favor different means to same ends” (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 4). Under such a situation, where there are perceivable incompatible objectives or means, if one partner is more dominating with a tendency to win all arguments, it leaves the other partner dissatisfied and resentful, who may then want to move out of the relationship in order to seek change. In the case to be analyzed the two interdependent people involved in the conflict were my ex-wife Cynthia and me. The two of us held equal power in the house in terms of decision-making and assuming responsibilities. Besides us, the third affected party in the conflict was my daughter Keira, who at the time of the divorce was only three years old. What gave rise to the conflict? In any conflict situation, the build-up starts with a latent period during which the feeling of frustration builds up in one partner due to various previously unresolved issues. Fig 1: “The competitive escalation cycle” (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 31). This cycle gives rise to conflicts within interpersonal relationships. Here the unresolved grievances from past instances acts as a fuel and tends to affect the present thinking pattern. The conflict arises when the person starting the conflict uses the “I am right” tone, and the other partner retaliates to defend his/her own position. This results in one partner winning the argument (typically the person who walks out first from an argument). Within a hierarchical partnership, when one partner is more dominating, he/she holds the key to the relationship dynamics and is thus more powerful, since he/she persistently wins all the arguments, there is a feeling of resentment in the loser’s mind (Abigail and Cahn, 2010). This constant suppression may lead to an outburst form the loser’s end, which then results in a conflict situation within an interpersonal relationship. While analyzing a conflict process we primarily focus on the outcome, whether it is constructive or destructive in nature. However, there is another aspect to this issue that is an integral part of conflict management study. Various experts working on conflict management over the years, in their work have identified four different kinds of conflict situations, where each must be dealt with in a different manner. Therefore, before seeking a resolution, it is necessary to comprehend what kind of a conflict the person, group or organization is involved in, as different conflicts types require different management procedures (Abigail and Cahn, 2007). A complete understanding of the various forms of conflicts helps one to choose more judiciously as one decided to opt for avoidance or a direct confrontation. Some conflicts are worth spending time and energy in order to sort it out and arrive at an amicable solution, while others are not; and one must learn to differentiate between these two kinds of conflicts. Fig 2: “This figure displays the four main categories of conflicts” (Abigail and Cahn, 2007, 54). From the above figure, it is clear that the conflict I had with my ex-wife was a real conflict, which later gave rise to a competitive situation, at least for some time, when instead of looking for a peaceful settlement, I became adamant on getting a divorce. Real conflicts are those that “actually exist in fact, are perceived accurately, and range from minor issues to those that are serious enough to hurt the relationship if they are left unattended” (Abigail and Cahn, 2007, 54). Our problems were real, and even before the situation had actually turned serious, we argued over every minor issue. After I went away on deployment to Afghanistan, some of the issues (especially my ex-wife’s resistance to my dominating attitude when it came to dealing with family’s financial matters) that we had left unattended to, grew to a serious proportion, and on my return prompted my ex-wife to immediately ask for a divorce. Instead of trying to save my marriage I agreed on the divorce, and from here the conflict situation from being a real conflict, moved on to the competitive situation. According to Abigail and Cahn “Competitive situations are those in which we have a desire to win, either by topping the other in an argument, a game, or some kind of larger rivalry” (2007, 57). Here competition focused on winning the child’s (our daughter, 3 year old Keira) custody, the nature of child support and marriage alimony. However the situation stopped from escalating into violence, as we decided to keep our daughter out of any nasty turns, and that decision really restrained us from going into any form of a rough competitive situation. In our case, my wife was of the opinion that even though we had equal powers within household matters, I always assumed a more dominant stand when it came to issues related to financial matters. This was the prelude phase when she started accumulating all her frustrations, and the triggering event occurred while I was deployed to Afghanistan, which led to a huge competitive argument. Finally when I came back from the deployment, my ex-wife asked for a divorce based on my controlling nature when it came to money issues. Owing to my stubborn nature and the male egoistic factor, I decided to take a competitive view of the entire situation and opted for a win-lose process, and instead of working towards comprising and saving my marriage I decided to go ahead with the divorce. Once we decided to get on with the divorce, the core issue in the conflict was the question of child custody. Thus, the previous main issue of financial control changed to who would get to take care of our daughter, and soon there were various subsidiary issues that resulted in small conflicts, as for example, the amount of money I would be handing out to my ex-wife as child support and alimony. Owing to the consistent conflicts that we had over every small issue at that time, gave rise to various kinds of emotions within me. While I was extremely angry with my ex-wife because I really believed that she was forcibly taking away my daughter from me, however at the same time I was sad to see our family breaking apart, and realized that I was losing the person I really loved. I was also scared of losing my daughter’s custody, as the judiciary system in California always seemed to favor women in divorce cases. The various emotions that I felt all at the same time arose chiefly because my family was really important to me and it was tearing me to see my family break apart. By the time I realized that it was my behavior (my dominating attitude and my choice for competitive argument) that had caused the break-up, it was already too late, and whatever I said or did mattered little to my ex-wife, who by that time had already made up her mind and was ready to leave. 2. Analyzing the situation How did the conflict move from the initiation phase through the management phase: There are various theories that aim to analyze a conflict situation, in order to assist in managing the situation and arrive at a productive solution. These are: Psychodynamic theory: Here “interpersonal states give rise to conflict” situations (Webster, MLOS561- conflict and negotiations in organizations, n.d.). Attrition theory: People tend to behave in a particular manner during a conflict situation owing to the “inferences they make about others based on their behaviors” (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 216). Often this may lead to unreal conflicts (fig 2). Uncertainty theory: this occurs when the people involved in a conflict fail to understand each other’s motives or objectives, and or they fail to relate to each other (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 218). Social exchange theory: this theory states, “People initiate conflict when they perceive that their relational rewards are too low or their costs too high” (Webster, MLOS561- conflict and negotiations in organizations, n.d.). Here people in a relationship tend to measure how much value the relationship offers, or whether she/he would be better off without the other partner. Systems Theory: “The behaviors of people in systems are interdependent; changes in one part affect changes in another part of the system; conflict is normal” (Webster, MLOS561- conflict and negotiations in organizations, n.d.). The significance of these theories is in the fact that they allow us to view a conflict situation and analyze why certain people behave in a specific manner during a conflict situation, thus allowing a manager to control better and produce outcomes that are more productive in nature. A conflict can be viewed as a process, comprising of a series of phases that are dynamic, alterable and persistently moving towards achieving a final objective (productive or destructive) (fig 3). Each phase tends to influence the other, and starting with a prelude stage, the entire process aims at seeking a resolution. Fig 3: “A Process View of Conflict” (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 22). The prelude phase is the first stage, which makes a conflict situation possible. It has various variables or factors that affect it, which are age and sex of the conflicting members, their relationship status (power distribution and their history of confrontations), the surrounding (physical and social) environment of the conflict situation, and other affected members (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 23). During this stage, the emotional residues build up in the losing partner’s mind (fig 1), causing frustration. This is then followed by the second phase known as the triggering event where a particular behavior initiates the manifestation of a conflict situation. Prior to the triggering incident, all underlying frustrations remain dormant, and with a particular incident/trigger, all the cumulative pent-up feelings against the dominating partner suddenly rush out in the open (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 31-32). After this phase, there are two choices: avoiding or initiation. Avoidance is a process or strategy that a partner may opt for when he/she decides not to confront, despite the presence of a strong trigger, which sometimes commendable is not always a healthy choice, as it further adds to the list of cumulative frustrations. However, if the partner decides to take the path of conflict, the next stage is known as initiation. Here the partners directly confront each other over their incompatibility issues and all past instances of discordances are brought up. The next phase is differentiation, where there are attempts at seeking a resolution to the conflict. If the partners have lost trust or respect for each other, they would opt for the process of competitive argument with a win-lose deal and a destructive outcome. For a positive or beneficial outcome, a better route would be to opt for a process of negotiation through effective communication and compromise (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 31-32). The last phase is resolution, where the outcome may be constructive or destructive according to the processes followed by the partners in a relationship. Here a closer look is necessary to understand how the conflict that I had with ex-wife actually moved from initiation phase and finally entered the management phase, and resolved peacefully (a constructive process, without entering the stage of interpersonal violence) (fig 2). Our conflict situation can be well understood when viewed through the systems theory and to some extent the uncertainty theory (during the divorce case when I was not sure what my wife would ask for and what the court would grant me as child custody rights). Given below are the systematic accounts of how it moved from prelude to the resolution within the framework of a conflict process: The prelude phase in our conflict: One of the major variables in the prelude phase within our conflict situation was the age difference that existed between my ex-wife and me. Cynthia (my ex-wife) was just 18 while I was only 22 when we got married. Analyzing our marriage I now realize we were too young to be married and the age factor was a major variable that led to conflict and subsequent divorce. Owing to the 4 years age gap, we also had a strong tendency to argue on trivial matters like, where to go for the weekend, how much money to spend on entertainment, etc. Therefore, here the factor of high fight frequencies also led to the conflict situation. Another factor added to the seriousness of the issue, which was my deployment to Afghanistan that led to some unresolved issues. One particular incident worth mentioning is the case where we had a major argument, but owing to the fact that I was leaving for Afghanistan next week, there wasn’t enough time to resolve our issues, thus leaving both of us frustrated; The triggering event- while I was deployed, one day my ex-wife told me over the phone that she had gone over on her cell phone bill, and that it would cost 500$ because she went over on her minutes. This piece of information instantly acted as a trigger, irritated me and I and started yelling over the phone. This was an incident where I behaved like an anger-out and expressed my outrage vocally to my ex-wife who had upset at that moment (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 145) The initiation of the conflict- it was then that my-ex said she wanted a divorce because I was too dominating and overtly controlling when it came to money matters, and she was tired of always arguing; The differentiation phase- was when, instead of comprising or negotiating and trying to save a marriage, we chose the competitive argument process and decided to get a divorce and go through a mediator; and The resolution phase- in this phase the judge decreed that I would get 30% child custody and my ex-wife would receive 70% custody; while for child support, as decided by the court, entailed that I pay $800. What kinds of relationships are constraining the actors in the conflict? what rules in the situation (e.g. organizational norms) help constrain or exacerbate the conflict? The fact that we loved our daughter helped us to constrain ourselves and we did not resort to any kind of physical violence, and we also agreed not to expose our daughter to the trauma of having to face the court system during the divorce case. The variables that help constrain a conflict situation include the acknowledgement that there is some basic interdependence (in this case, our daughter, after the divorce) which helps in collaboration amongst the disputants; specific common objectives (not to let our daughter go through the court system); sense of contingency (our desire to move on); mutual respect and faith; presence of a mediator (who helped us in sharing information, communicate with each other amicably, and finally reach to a mutually agreeable settlement). In a relationship there are various factors that exacerbate a conflict situation. One of the most important factors is the sense of power imbalance amongst the disputants. In this context Barbara Gray opined that “parties will be understandably reluctant to collaborate of they are at disadvantage to adequately represent their interest or if they believe their interest will be deemed secondary to more powerful ones” (1989, 250). Here the weaker party will want to prolong the conflict in hopes of achieving a more favorable situation, later. Lack of mutual trust and failure to communicate are two other important factors in the process of exacerbating a conflict situation. Differences in opinion and cultural differences also may add to the problem, leading to exacerbating the conflict situation. None of these factors played a major role in our conflict situation thus allowing a fast and mutually beneficial settlement. Who has a motivation to resolve the conflict? why? who will be the first to notice if the conflict was being interfered with and stopped from being resolved? why? Once we had decided to go ahead with a divorce and with equal power distribution between the two of us, it was in our interest that the conflict would end as fast as possible. So, both of us were eager for things to be over, smoothly, with minimum hassles and interruption. Either Cynthia or me would have noticed if there were any interferences of any kind made at stopping the conflict from arriving at a resolution, however nothing of that sort occurred, as we were simply eager to move on with our lives and end the conflict. Who has an interest in keeping this conflict from being resolved? why? In our case neither of us wanted to stop this conflict from being resolved, since we understood that it would suit us better if we were allowed to go our separate ways. How have the relationships between those involved changed as a result of the conflict? The relationship between Cynthia and me has improved since the time of our divorce. This is primarily because we do not argue as much as we used to when we were married. Every once in a while we do argue, but it’s no longer as intense because we don't live in the same house, so if one argues the other just hangs up the phone. Another reason why the arguments aren't as intense is because we are no longer interdependent or emotionally as attached as before. How would an understanding of forgiveness help the participants to come to a resolution of the conflict? During the mediation we actually did forgive each other and decided it would be best if we each went our separate ways. Forgiving each other really did help during the process of the divorce. Con?ict resolution is necessary for any interpersonal relationship, and any form of resentment held against the partner is likely to create barriers in the way of an effective con?ict resolution. On the other hand, forgiveness allowed for reconciliation and a possibility of a long-term relationship (with my daughter, since my ex-wife received 70% child custody rights) along with short-term interactions (like regular meetings with my daughter or talking over the phone with my ex-wife) for various requirements. In my case this was essential, as conflict resolution meant obtaining a divorce; however our relationship did not end there, owing to our daughter. Therefore, forgiveness was the way by which we could reconcile and keep meeting on a regular basis (long-term relationship) to share our responsibilities towards our child, even after divorce. Do you think you are able to resolve this conflict in a way the nether violates your ethics nor unduly constrains your ability to act? will that resolution maintain the integrity of your relationship with other person? Yes during the course of the conflict we were both able to conduct in a respectful way towards each other. This helped us to maintain a civil relationship even after our divorce. Although we are not the best of friends, but we can talk and coordinate schedules, which would have been very hard to achieve if either one had acted differently during mediation. 3. Recommendations: In any conflict there are two possible forms of reaction: confront or avoid (take flight). From the view of mediator (a third party and a neutral perspective) it is clear that in this case two individuals that were interdependent, but now owing to irreconcilable incompatibilities, have decided to confront each other, file a divorce case and go their separate ways. From the perspective of mediation strategies, there are three alternatives: arbitration, litigation and mediation (MLOS561 session 5, slide 8) to seek resolution for a conflict. Here a mediator must remember that his/her role is limited to assisting in conflict resolution, and he/she has no power to take any decisions, which is solely the disputants right (MLOS561 session 5, slide 8). For individuals involved in conflict there are five established modes to tackle conflict and these are: avoidance (neither dominating nor cooperative), comprising (adopting a middle path), accommodating (non-dominating and co-operating), collaborative (dominating but co-operative), and competitive (dominating and non-cooperative) (Thomas and Thomas, 2006, 11-15). A mediator along with the concerned parties can make avail of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) to determine the nature of conflict mode used in the situation, after which a conflict management plan for this case can be drawn (Ben Yoav and Banai, 1992). The TKI assessment would give the mediator information on the modes of the conflict situation used by the disputants. This, along with further guidance, would allow a scope for reflection by each individual party and help to ascertain the present level of comfort with the adopted mode of conflict resolution. After this the conflicting individuals may opt to continue with the same mode or go for a change. The mediator’s chief role is to open up an effective communication route between the disputing parties. Effective communication creates a favorable atmosphere that is positive for producing a productive outcome to the conflict. The mediator’s advice must be specific, descriptive, leading towards behavioral patterns that can be modified, and they must give feedback when requested without taking any decision on the disputants’ behalves (Abigail and Cahn, 2010, 197-200). As regards this case, from the perspective of a mediator, the recommendations would be: To make an opening statement where the objectives, regulations of mediation must be clearly expressed, and all questions answered by the mediator. Next the discussion must be started where disputants are made to sit and listen to each other’s grievances. This would help them to be aware of each other’s stand and derive a mutual agreement, which is a win-win solution. There should be no interruptions and no threats or violence allowed while discussing the situation. Mediator must work towards breaking a deadlock by finding out presumptions made by the disputants, and challenging these presumptions to sort out unresolved misunderstandings; Mediator directs the discussion in a manner that would take into account potential terms of settlement; The entire process must be turned into a collaborative process (and not a competitive one). The mediator must place the focus on real conflicting issues, and remove all subsidiary matters, while maintaining a fine balance between “losing face and taking advantage” (MLOS561 session 5, Groups, Organizations, Mediation and 3rd Party Intervention, slide 13). From a Christian point of view the mediator may recommend the following the procedures: The disputants should be allowed to express their anger without getting verbally or physically abusive. As Webster states from a Christian perspective, “Anger flows from perceived pain and is generated by love and designed to heal. The misuse of anger is condemned – not anger itself” (Webster, MLOS561- conflict and negotiations in organisations, slide 26). Thus, anger must be channelized in an appropriate manner that would help to express one’s pain and not be destructive in nature. Since Christianity allows conflicts under certain circumstances for seeking justice that includes “to de-escalate and terminate a relationship on good terms” (Webster, MLOS561- conflict and negotiations in organizations, slide 30). Therefore, in this case it would be better if the two disputants ended their relationship on good terms, instead of resorting to abuse and violence. Another significant aspect in ending a conflict and moving on, is to forgive the opponent. Forgiveness allows one to maintain a cordial relationship between the disputants even after the relationship has ended and helps one to attain mental peace during and after the conflict situation process. Forgiveness as means of renewing interpersonal relationships and ending conflicts is found in almost all the religious texts of the word including Christianity. However, it also refers to balancing justice and delivering peace in the process of seeking conflict resolution through forgiveness. Therefore, it is necessary for the mediator to try to arrange for according equal treatment for both the partners and getting justice delivered, failing which there maybe resentment in the partner that lost. However, the mediator should try to make the disputants understand that whatever the outcome maybe, it is for their own benefit (mental and physical) that they forgive before moving on. References Abigail, R., and Cahn, D. (2010). Managing Conflict through communication (4th edn.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Abigail, R., and Cahn, D. (2007). Managing Conflict through communication (3rd edn.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bhattacharya, S. (2008). Social Work: Psycho-social and Health Aspects. New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications. Ben-Yoav, O., & Banai, M. (1992). Measuring conflict management styles: A comparison between MODE and ROCI-II instruments using self and peer ratings. International Journal of Conflict Management, 3 (3), 237-247.  Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thomas, K., and Thomas, G. (2006). Conflict Styles of Men and Women at Six Organization Levels. Retrieved from https://www.cpp.com/Pdfs/TKI_Article_On_Conflict_Styles.pdf#search="conflict management" [Accessed 20th February 2012] Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision making?: Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26, 558-590. MLOS561 session 5, Groups, Organizations, Mediation and 3rd Party Intervention. Rahim, M. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations (2nd edn.). Westport, CT: Praeger. Volkema, R., and Bergmann, T. (1995). Conflict styles as indicators of Behavioural patterns in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of Social Psychology, 135 (1), 5-15. Wall, J., & Callister, R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management 21 (3), 515-558. Webster, P. MLOS561- conflict and negotiations in organisations. Read More