Conflict Reduction - Assignment Example

CONFLICT RESOLUTION al Affiliation CONFLICT RESOLUTION From the outright, the dispute in the Spark Island case and scenario stipulates the dispute or conflict which arises from misconceptions and disagreements over who the legitimate user of the island is. There is the whole aspect and concept of historical ownership over the island, thus, it would be critical to analyze the matter into perspectives ranging from the past society when it all began up to the current stalemate. Firstly, it would be imperative to attack the problem and not the people who seem to be embroiled in the problem.

The problem seems to be multifaceted in the sense that there are several parties, especially the locals of the region complain about the increased traffic in that area. Thus, it would be critical to attack the problem of increase in the number of traffic in the region and dissociate personal attacks during the conflict resolution. Similarly, it would be prudent to focus on the issue and not parties’ position about the conflict. The primary conflict and issue is the question of traffic which has increased over the years.

It would thus be prudent to focus on the issue itself and not the positions affronted by the different parties in the conflict. Intuitively, it would be critical and beneficial to try to forge a common compromise or agreement, notwithstanding the fact that opinion and positions may differ (Lewicki, Hiam & Olander, 1996). This is to mention that it would be not to force compliance amongst the parties, but rather strive to formulate a compromise agreement. Subsequently, it would be imperative to focus on areas of common interest, while paying little or no attention to the diversity of opinion.

For instance, it is of common interest in this case that the traffic has increased over the recent past, thus, attention ought to be given to it. It is important to note and record that the current problem ought to be treated and dealt with in its current position without drawing historical precedents which may be injurious to the negotiation process.ReferenceLewicki, R. J., Hiam, A., & Olander, K. W. (1996). Think before you speak: A complete guide to strategic negotiation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.