ADR JOURNAL
NATURE OF CONFLICT (WEEK 1):
Weeks puts it well when he says “most definitions of conflict conjure up rather sombre and
often frightening associations”. In class, we were asked to think of connotations to the word
“conflict” and they were in the majority negative. Some connotations were: tension,
disagreement, animosity and hostility. Weeks, frequently does a similar exercise in his conflict
resolution workshops across the world and he has observed that conflict is most universally
perceived as a negative occurrence.
In class, once I saw the list of negative connotations on the white board, I thought to myself
that there is more to this, conflict cannot be all bad. I thought about my relationship with my
boyfriend and how frequent it is that one of us has an issue with the other’s behaviour and the
only way for us to overcome that issue is through conflict and then ultimately, resolution. (I
must relate to the desire to remedy it because we want to keep a good relationship...)
It is clear from the above diverging perceptions that conflict may be take on different shapes
and forms. (Positive negative)Deutsch has identified two types of conflict, namely:
constructive and destructive conflict (also referred to as functional and dysfunctional
conflict).Deutsch distinguishes between these as follows: As concerns destructive conflict,
conflict escalates and results in mutual attacks and efforts to destroy each other, misjudgements
and perceptions and situational entrapment in which the conflict becomes enhanced. In such a
process a group’s capacity to achieve its goal or even survive may be significantly limited.
Whereas, productive conflict witnesses the incentive of problem-solving; triggers creativity
and innovation; stimulates new ways of interacting; and promotes interparty relations in terms
of communications, trust, sensitivity and understanding.
Weeks explains that if we fear conflict and perceive it as a negative experience, we harm our
chances of dealing with it effectively. Weeks and Anstey agree that conflict is neither positive
nor negative in and of itself and rather, each of us have influence and power over whether or
not conflict becomes negative and that influence and power if found in the way we handle it.
To put it differently, it is not conflict necessarily that is regarded as positive or negative, but
how it is handled.
This then begs the question, what is the best way to use conflict more effectively and make the
shift from function to dysfunctional.
Weeks puts forth the Conflict Partnership Approach as a means to achieve this. This approach
focuses on both the immediate conflict and the overall relationship, of which a particular
conflict is but one part, providing skills that are not one conflict resolution skills but also
relationship-building skills. This approach provides us with the power to reach the “top level
of conflict resolution”. The top level is reached when parties in a conflict come to a resolution
that meets some individual and shared needs, results in mutual benefits and strengthens the
relationship. The conflict partnership approach will be explored throughout….
The middle level is reached when parties come to some mutually acceptable agreement to settle
a conflict for the time being but do little to enhance the relationship. Traditional negotiation,
mediation, and arbitration patters typically tend to reach this level. The lower level is reached
when one party conquers the other, when one party submits to the demands of the other party,
or when the relationship is dissolved with mutual damage.
Conflict framework- I don’t know where to include this.
A framework provides a map for understanding the conflict process. Thomas distinguishes
between two models of conflict: the structural model and the process model. A structural model
attempts to understand conflict phenomena by considering how underling conditions shape
event, which are relatively fixed or slow changing and are seen as structural in nature.
A process model focus on the internal dynamics of conflict episodes, studying events and
effects on succeeding events in conflict episodes.
Anstey puts forth that both these models are necessary for effective conflict management.
Anstey proposes that both these approaches need to be integrated a puts forth a conceptual
model for the full understanding of conflict. This model focuses on sources of conflict; conflict
aggravators and moderators; and conflict behaviour. This will be explored in subsequent
journal entries.
I NEED TO PUT THE DIAGRAM IN HERE!
Need to still reflect on negotiation exercise.
CAUSES OF CONFLICT, THE CONFICT PATH AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
PROCESSES (WEEK 2)
As notes in the previous entry, the conceptual model focuses on sources of conflict; conflict
aggravators and moderators; and conflict behaviour
Causes of conflict:
Just like a doctor must diagnose a patient before prescribing medicine, so must we as legal
practitioners diagnose the causes of conflict in order to resolve the dispute. Weeks has
identified the following causes of conflict or as Weeks puts it, “the ingredients of conflict”:
needs or wants, perceptions, values and principles, diversity and differences, feelings and
emotions, and internal conflict.
Needs of Wants
Needs can be one’s own needs, those of the other party to the conflict or of the relationship.
Needs are conditions we perceive that cannot do without. Naturally, the most fulfilling and
mutually beneficial relationships are those where the needs of both parties are acknowledged
met. On the other hand, conflict may arise when needs are ignored or the meeting of needs are
obstructed. If the other party’s needs are ignored, that party may feel their needs are less
valuable and thus, their contribution to the relationship suffers. Ignoring one’s own needs may
be a consequences of being concerned that one may appear selfish. However, the effect is that
the other party is disillusioned as to the extent your needs and as a result, the other party is
denied the opportunity to contribute fully to the relationship. Lastly, it is trite that in order for
a relationship to continue, it needs to be nurtured. Nurturing a relationship means catering for
the needs of the relationship, sometimes over the needs of the individuals to the relationship.
Perceptions:
Perceptions are not truths but are perceived as such. People interpret reality differently and in
this way , although a particular event may happen in a certain way, people may perceive this
event in different ways. Some of these perceptions may in fact be incorrect (they are
misperceptions) but they are belief to be true by the particular person and therefore that
perception falls part of the person’s reality.
Differing perceptions may be the cause of conflict. The perceptions concerned may be: selfperceptions; perceptions of the other party; perceptions of situations; and perceptions of threat.
(SHOULD I ELABORATE ON THESE?).
POWER:
Power may cause conflict when it is defined as the ability to exercise control or gain advantage
over someone instead of as the capacity to act effectively and the ability to influence. If this
definition of power guides behaviour, one of the parties is in effect being disempowered and
therefore naturally, damaging conflicts will occur.
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES:
A value is something, be it a belief, principle, or pattern of behaviour that a person considers
to be of critical worth. Certain values may be of such critical worth to a person that there is
almost no chance that the person would allow for the value to be changed or sacrificed. Other
values may, however, may carry less critical worth to a person and therefore, the person may
be more flexible in allowing the value to be altered or changed for the sake of the relationship.
Conflict may arise when a person thinks that if a belief exists that his or her values are being
threatened and therefore they feel justified to defend those values. However, in reality the
conflict may in fact be over preferences. Many conflicts stem from the exaggeration of
importance over preferences to such an extent that they become perceived as values and
principles.
Furthermore, conflict may arise where on party refuses to accept the fact that the other party
holds something to be a value rather than merely a preference. Another way in which a conflict
may arise is were parties hold seemingly incompatible values. Lastly, conflict may arise when
one or both of the parties is unclear about its own values.
Diversity and Differences:
Naturally, different people tend to hold different perceptions, needs, values, powers, desires,
goals, and opinions. This is a healthy aspect of human society. Conflicts, however, arise when
people choose to feel threatened by a differing point of view or they allow the differences that
have between themselves and another, define the entire relationship rather than just agreeing
to disagree and moving forward.
Should I bring race and gender in here?
Feelings and Emotions:
Conflicts are often caused or exacerbated by the investment of feels and emotions. This may
stem from an allowance of emotions and feelings being a determining factor in dealing with
conflict or on opposite side of the coin, choosing to ignore them.
Internal conflicts:
Lastly, another cause of conflict, although often overlooked is that of internal conflict. The
cause of internal conflicts cannot be exhaustively listed as it is so unique to each individual,
however, broadly, the following may cause internal conflict: a person is not sure what their
values are, or of who or what they want to be; a person is unsure of the type of relationship
they want to have with another person; and a person has diverse internal voices pulling them
in different directions as concerns how they should respond to a particular situation. Whatever
the cause, an internal conflict if not dealt with effectively may create conflicts in relationships.
In class, we were asked to pair up and share with the other person a recent conflict we were
undergoing in our lives. We were then required to identify the causes of conflict present in our
peer’s conflict. My friend, Kyle George, explained that a new person had moved into his digs
this year and because he is new, was not familiar with certain digs practices such as who parks
where and how long it was okay to use the communal television for at a time. Kyle explained
that because these things are not hard and fast rules but rather practices stemming from digs
courtesy and consideration, no one had approached him. Consequently, there now exists and
unspoken tension in the digs.
I identified the following causes of Kyle’s conflict: Perhaps in a small way, power stemming
from a sense of authority having been digs members longer and therefore, feeling that you
possess more authority and that is being ignored (to which Kyle agreed). I also identified
perceptions as another cause. To the news digs member, he may perceive where he is parking
is car as the logical place or that there is no problem with him occupying the tv for awhile
because no one has made it clear that they would like to use it. On the other hand, the older
digs members obviously perceive the way they have always done things as the correct and
courteous way. What I believe to be another major cause of conflict here, although it has not
been identified by weeks, is a lack of coherence inherent within the digs. EXPAND ON THIS.
Should I give my example? And my internal conflict example?
Aggravators and moderators:
Anstey explains that there may several causes of conflict apparent in a relationship but the
expression of this depends on the presence and influence of various intervening variables that
serve to aggravate or moderate (aggravators or moderators) the actions of the parties involved.
Where parties have high aspirations that are in competition with each other, conflict arises.
High aspirations levels may be rooted in the following. (DO TREE ROOTS HERE):
perceptions of legitimacy and feasibility; invidious comparison and past achievement; the
formation of struggle groups and perceptions of power; the history relations between parties
Perceptions of legitimacy and feasibility:
It makes common sense that where a party believes that it has moral right to certain resources,
it will probably uses its resources to achieve these.
Example necessary?
Invidious comparison and past achievement:
This often plays out in the labour world commonly where labour negotiators are faced with
invidious comparison of poorer or better in their industries that employers or trade unionists
use for pressure purposes in negotiations. The use of comparisons feeds into the parties’
feelings of entitlement to certain rewards and thus, increases their aspiration levels.
The formation of struggle groups and perceptions of power:
It may happen that when struggle groups mobilise, their perception of actual power relativities
may be skewed and aspiration levels may lack an appropriate reality assessment.
The history relations between parties:
The history relations between parties often serves as an aggravating factor in conflicts. In a
negotiation setting, there is a vast difference between negotiations where relationships have
deteriorated and those where a stable relationship prevails. In the latter, parties are able to
channel their efforts on the dispute itself whereas in the former, poor relationships, mistrust,
strong emptions, misperceptions, poor communication and the desire to punish take preference.
Some common examples of aggravators and moderators? Find a proper source.
In terms of the “behaviour” element of the conceptual model, Thomas explains that conflict is
best understood by examining the consequences of various behaviours. These behaviours are
usually categorised according to conflict styles or approaches. There are many different conflict
styles. In terms of negative conflict styles (and thus styles which should be avoided), Weeks
identifies the following:
That being said, how does one go about handling conflict in a positive way? Weeks helps in
this regard by providing five approaches to conflict that are not positive/effective and which
we should therefore avoid. These are as follows: The conquest approach; the avoidance
approach; the bargaining approach; the bandaid aid approach; the role-player approach.
The conquest approach:
A conflict is viewed as a battle to be won and thereby, achieving dominance in the relationship.
“The Conqueror” tries to weaken the other party and simultaneously tried to make their selfgreater.
Ever so seldom, my sister and I find ourselves in a very ugly fight where this approach is
typically being used. Our habit is to exaggerate each other’s bad character traits and throw
them in each other’s face. We then run to another family member and try our best to paint
ourselves as the image of innocence. A sense of having “won” is felt if we are offered a sense
of validation by the other family member.
The avoidance approach:
This concerns the belief that a conflict will go away if we pretend that it does not exist. The
desire to avoid conflict may stem from a variety of reasons, such as: conflict is narrowly
perceived as strictly unfriendly behaviour; a fear exists that once the other party is confronted,
a battle will ensue and of which someone will come out the loser (it doesn’t matter who); and
a fear exists that the person wouldn’t belong anymore if they confronted the other person.
I am guilty of employing this approach, especially when a conflict exists between my boyfriend
and me. I think to a large degree I rely on this approach because I am afraid that an “ugly” and
prolonged fight will ensue should I address the issue. This is exasperated by the fact that we
are in a long distance relationship and I view spending the brief time we have together
addressing issues as time wasted. As a result of this, I have a tendency to put things off,
however, they always do eventually come out but explosively and unproductively so.
The bargaining approach:
Here, the bargainer sees conflict resolution as a game in which portions of demands and
interests are traded and success is defined by how much each party concedes.
My 2019 flatmate and I used this approach almost every time we tried to decide on a movie to
watch together. We have very different tastes and so we always ended up having to forsake our
preferred genres and settle on a movie which we were both neutral about but ultimately in the
end, neither of us would thoroughly enjoy the choice.
The bandaid approach:
This approach involves employing some sort of quick-fix solution to a conflict. This may be
because a person is trying to avoid exposing their vulnerabilities or because they have little
confidence in their conflict resolution skills.
My siblings and I often used this approach growing up. As siblings go, we often irritated one
another, causing the other to lash out. Instead of working though what it was that we were
doing that irritated the other so much, we would ignore each other for a while until one of us
eventually offered the other a cup of tea or some food as a gesture of apology. The result being
that none of the triggers were identified and the lash-outs did not lessen.
The role-player approach:
Here a person hides behind their role (be it boss, chid, friend, spouse etc) when dealing with
conflict. This approach often creates worse conflicts later on because the needs of the entire
person, which us more than just the characteristics of a particular role, were not considered and
specific problems were not resolved. Furthermore, certain roles are afforded greater advantage
and power over the other which creates an environment of inequality and from which may stem
damaging conflict and a disintegration of a relationship.
In first year, my mock trial group used this approach against me when I had to miss one of our
meetings. I explained to the group in advance that I had to go away for the weekend to say
goodbye to someone very important to me because they were moving overseas. Instead of
viewing my situation with sympathy as a peer, they hid behind the role of “group members”
and said despite my reason, any form of absence will be noted and will reflect negatively on
my peer assessment mark
The above reflections showed me that I employ a number of negative conflict approaches. This
was reaffirmed by the exercise I did which was provided for by Weeks. Here, I read four
conflict scenarios and chose one of the provided responses to each conflict which embodied
one of the above approaches. With the above in mind, it makes sense that my results were as
follows: avoidance, conquest, and bargaining.
Positive and Neutral conflict styles?
Are these different styles used in various methods of dispute resolution-arb, meg , neg etc?
WEEK 3 –NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES