Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
Transforming destructive patterns: A major feature
in streamlining business
Forfatter: Daniel Jørgensen
Vejleder: Line Ramsing
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 1 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Table of Content
Summary .......................................................................................... 3
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 4
1.2 Problem-Need Memo ................................................................. 5
1.3 Method & Methodology ............................................................ 6
1.4 Theoretical Framework .............................................................. 8
2.1 Analysis.................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 Defining Conflict ............................................................... 12
2.1.2 Theorizing cooperation and competition ........................... 13
2.1.3 Conflict Cycle – episode, epicenter and history ................ 16
2.1.4 The individual – needs, goals and positions ...................... 19
2.1.5 Transcendence Method and Conflict Styles ...................... 23
2.2 Tools for transcendence ........................................................... 27
2.2.1 Dialogue ............................................................................. 27
2.2.2 Nonviolent Communication .............................................. 28
2.2.3 Onion Model ...................................................................... 29
2.3 Recommendations .................................................................... 30
3.1 Conclusion ............................................................................... 33
3.1.1 End notes ............................................................................ 35
4.1 Bibliography ............................................................................ 36
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 2 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Summary
With common sense I establish that interpersonal conflicts in the work place have
numerous negative consequences on employee well-being and company performance.
However, this paper emphasizes that conflict merely a sign growth and change. Conflicts
are potential creators but at the same time potential destroyers.
This is what Morton Deutsch (1973; 1990; 2006) terms constructive and destructive
patterns. Throughout the paper I employ numerous theories to further enlarge on how
conflicts evolve and how patterns of conflict induce themselves. If an interpersonal
conflict turns destructive it will (if no action is taken) most likely escalate and focus will
move away from the initial root conflict. This phenomenon I employ different models to
describe – common to all is that the conflict will be characterized by hatred and violence.
That outcome can and should in no mind be wished for.
Following that, this paper establishes the notion that only destructive conflicts have
negative consequences on employee well-being and company performance. And thus the
purpose of this paper is to, through theoretical facts, outline how destructive conflict
patterns are prevented and/or changed into constructive pattern leaving the conflict
parties with a satisfying and positive outcome.
I propose that companies/employees should strive for a transcendence outcome (Galtung,
2000) of every conflict they may encounter. Transcendence in this connection is not some
meta-physical state, but rather it is about reaching higher than one initially thinks of.
Galtung (2000) put Transcendence outcome above withdrawal, win-lose and
compromise. In essence transcendence outcome leaves conflict parties with more than
they initially wanted.
Transcendence may sound unattainable; however, I propose three tools for reaching that
outcome. Galtung’s (2000) Dialogue together with empathy and creativity; Rosenberg’s
(2003) Nonviolent Communication; and finally Fisher, et al’s (2000) Onion model.
The task is to discover common ground. What are the actual needs and goals of the
conflicting parties? These tools can discover and establish this common ground and at the
same time foster understanding and acceptance in between the conflict parties. At this
state a transcend outcome is possible to found.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 3 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
There companies need to train, educate or at least inform their employees of this
knowledge and these ways of communicating; and at the same time encourage and
appreciate such ways of communicating by giving space for such method.
Characters: 2,152 = 1 Page
1.1 Introduction
”All nature is at war, one organism with another, or with external nature.” -Charles
Darwin
I work part time at a customer service job in a major Danish supermarket. I hate working
on Mondays. Mondays are with Iben – a colleague of mine. I do not like her! She does
not do what I tell her to do. Everything with her and me is about winning – ruling the
other. It used to be just about who had to degrade ourselves to open an extra checkout
line in case of long checkout queue. Now the situation is plain competitive and
destructive – I do not listen to her, she does not listen to me. Everything is zero-sum. This
is not exactly a favorable scenario for a supermarket that prides itself on having the
highest level of service in its area. This supposed high level of service is realized in some
operationalized parameters like: Smiling staff, fast service, no cashier checkout queues,
extensive refund service – all carried out in a nice welcoming manner. Believe me –
neither Iben nor I smile on Mondays. This lowering of pleasure with work affect our
wellbeing and daily work performance – and thus company performance.
This may be a simple and not too astonishing or surprising example; however it is not
hard to imagine that one of us would call in sick just to avoid working with the other. Or
imagine the case of the CEOs of two merging corporation getting in conflict and working
against each other. Investigation shows that leaders use between 20 and 30 percent of
their time on solving conflicts.1
1
According to Optimize Organizational Opportunities Consultants at http://www.3oc.org/116/ (at
02.05.10).
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 4 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
1.2 Problem-Need Memo
People are people – we have values, beliefs from which we base our attitudes. Our
values, beliefs and attitudes often interfere and clash with those of other people. Often
this leads to no further problems, however sometimes we perceive our values, beliefs and
attitudes to be incompatible and thus resulting in conflict: An interpersonal conflict.
Scope: This paper will adopt the definition of a conflict used by Galtung (2000) in his
Transcend Manual: Conflict equals attitudes plus behavior plus a core contradiction. The
nature of the conflict is dependent on how these three parameters are expressed. A reason
for this choice will be further explained in point 2.1.1. Conflicts can exist on numerous
levels such micro, meso, macro and mega level. Respectively, that would be
interpersonal, intra-group, inter-group, in-between nations or even between Man and
Nature. In this paper I will focus merely on interpersonal conflicts, that is conflict
between two or more persons – the number of people is of less importance.
Justification: Today most of us rely on cooperation and most of todays companies apply
group work or team based tasks in their daily functions. Thus it is critical to the single
employee to be able to handle conflict situations with peers, superiors or for a manager to
handle a conflict between employees for that matter. Therefore I have chosen
interpersonal focus; and most likely skills acquired from being applied to handle
interpersonal conflicts will have like positive effects on cooperation between groups.
Problem: Interpersonal conflict in itself is not a problem2. However, it can become a
problem if it is not resolved and transformed into something productive, but instead result
in competitive and destructive attitudes and behaviors. In these undesirable cases
conflicts can have numerous outcomes, which directly or indirectly can influence
employee well-being and company performance in a negative way. The problem in
conflict is its potential to turn competitive instead on cooperative. Often the vague
concept of open communication is prescribed as the way of ensuring a cooperative nature
2
See point 2.1.1 and further for details on this.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 5 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
of an interpersonal conflict. However, what constitutes open communication? The
question is why is it so difficult for people/employees to “open a conflict” – to bring the
conflict to light in a way that reverses the destructive spiral? Thus my problem statement
becomes:
Problem statement: How can companies assist employees in transforming destructive
conflict patterns and in that way ensure the well-being of employees and company
performance?
A positive outcome of interpersonal conflict in this paper would be the transformation of
a conflict from being competitive into cooperative in that such would create productivity
– making an unsolvable problem solvable. And that again would ensure the well-being of
the employees and company performance.
Delimitations: I have chosen to neglect the fact that different cultures may affect conflict
theory in different ways. Thus in this paper a company and an employee/individual will
be Western.
1.3 Method & Methodology
Theories of scientific knowledge are relevant to consider at different levels of this paper.
The major fulcrum of this paper is individual and identity and inflicting identities – thus
social contructionism, which ties to philosophical constructivism is a sound concept to
consider. However, considerations on this is primarily done indirectly through the
specific texts and argument used throughout this paper. This is connected to the feminist
perspective I take in the paper. I will elaborate more on this in the end of section 1.4.
This paper should be considered an argument for its conclusion. The premises
stem from knowledge gained from other authors and earlier knowledge. Their findings I
deductively use to ground new knowledge. From this knowledge I induce
recommendations for companies. When I seek knowledge from previous writings I must
strive to work from a theoretical hermeneutics perspective as I need to adhere to
understand text as it was intended by the author, rather than interpreting on the authors. I
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 6 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
need to understand how they see the knowledge. I must see understanding as coming
from the sender rather than being fusion between object and receivers (as the
philosophical hermeneutics argue) (Sherrat, 2005). The importance, in this connection, of
understanding as meant by the author has to do with argumentation theory. Mark Vorobej
(2006) state four criteria for argument quality – here it is understood that quality is the
degree of cogency. The four cogency conditions that must be fulfilled in order for an
argument to be cogent are:
Truth of premises is the aspect of whether it is rational for an audience to believe that the
premises in the argument are true.
Relevance of premises is the aspect of whether it is rational for an audience to believe that
the premises in the argument are relevant to the conclusion.
Grounding relation between premises and conclusion is the concern of whether it is
rational for an audience to believe that the premises in the argument provide enough
evidence for the conclusion to justify belief in it.
And finally, Compactness of argument refers to the aspect of whether it is rational for an
audience to believe that the argument contains no superfluous premises.
The importance of adopting an author’s understanding asserts itself when you
seek to ensure relevancy. If I do not use points and arguments from an author the way he
originally intended it, those arguments become less rational for my audience to conceive
them as relevant. However, as pointed out by Skinner (1986) when referring to
Gardamar’s philosophical hermeneutics it is impossible to omit from interpreting. And by
interpreting, is understood that the meaning is creating in the fusion of horizons (1986:27)
between the object and subject. Thus it can always be argued that the relevancy of my
argument’s premises is questionable.
The knowledge I deduct from my sources I go on to induce (generalize) on to
companies as an unspecified unity in the form of recommendations. Such induction I
justify by the fact that companies are composed of individuals; and the induced
knowledge is deduced from individuals. My underlying premise of this paper thus
becomes: What applies to the individual, applies to the individual no matter the context.
Accepting this underlying premise, my conclusion becomes valid; rejection of it reduces
the conclusion to reliable with no real measure on the reliability. Thus it could be of
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 7 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
future interest to conduct research on effects of the recommendations being put forward
in this paper.
1.4 Theoretical Framework
To justify belief in my conclusion I will draw upon numerous theories throughout this
paper.
Individual – needs and identities
I strive to make my argument as compact as possible. In that sense it is difficult to point
out a more important theory. However, at the most basic yet profound level this
argumentation is Johan Galtung’s (2000:84) model of Needs, Goals and Positions. It
originates from Maslow (1954, in Miller, 2006). and other classical motivational
theorists. The model illustrates how individuals formulate goals in order to fulfill needs;
and positions to help reach goals. Galtung describe Needs as:

Survival, as opposed to death, individually and collectively.

Well-being, meaning food, shelter, clothes, health.

Identity, something to live for – not only live from.

Freedom, having choices for the three above.
(2000:84)
According to Galtung the model serve two purposes:
1. To understand when a conflict becomes hard – a conflict on scarce resources to
fulfill basic needs.
2. To ensure preservation of conflict parties different needs in a resolution or
transformation process.
Furthermore, the model can be helpful in the process of understanding a conflict. The
model emphasizes the difference between needs, goals and positions. The relationship
between the three is not always easy to understand as they are influenced the individuals
rational as well as irrational beliefs of how to reach the goals and how to fulfill the needs
(Fisher, et al, 2000; Rosenberg, 2003). This is my reason for using this theory. It serves
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 8 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
as justification for usage of later theories and methods to communicate needs rather than
positions.
Conflict
Another theory by Galtung is my definition of conflict. In his Transcend Method he
proposes his ABC model: Attitudes + Behavior + Core Contradiction = Conflict
(Galtung, 2000:13). Conflict becomes more than merely perceived incompatibility in
goals which need a resolution. This definition allows me to put emphasis on the need for
communication – seeing conflict and its transformation as a process.
Constructive vs. destructive processes of conflict
Conflicts are proof of something wants to change; and is potential changes to the better.
In the resolution/transformation perspective a conflict can follow a constructive or
destructive pattern (Galtung, 2000; Deutsch, 1973; 1990; Deutsch et al, 2006). As
mentioned in the introduction a conflict is not necessarily negative unless it turns
destructive. Morton Deutsch theorizes the conditions that give rise to a constructive and
cooperative pattern rather than destructive and competitive with the theory: Deutsch’s
crude law of social relations (Deutsch, 1990:245). With it Deutsch basically state, that
those conditions are the same condition as those determining the pattern of a social
relationship. And those are the degree of perceived similarity in beliefs and attitudes.
Most importantly, these patterns induce themselves.
In connection to this Galtung (2000) words the attitudes, beliefs and core contradictions
(from his ABC model of conflict) for both the destructive and constructive pattern:
Attitudes of hatred, distrust and apathy; behavior of physical and verbal violence; and a
blocked contradiction is connected to the destructive pattern of conflict, whereas attitudes
of empathy; a nonviolent behavior; and creative thoughts on the contradiction is
connected to the constructive pattern.
Destructive vs. constructive is the core of conflict resolution. Thus the condition
conditions giving rise for one instead of the other is of extreme interest. In this paper
Deutsch’s theory serve the purpose of emphasizing the need for action to change these
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 9 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
attitudes and behavior as described by Galtung as they will not merely change by
themselves over a long enough time line.
As a rhetorical move this theory is followed up by Galtung’s Transcend Method, which
will state tactics when the constructive patterns are not present.
Conflict Development
Jean Paul Lederach (2003) describes, in his work on conflict transformation, the concept
and interrelations of episode, epicenter and history. He uses this model (Figure 2) to
explain the importance of not only addressing the episode, which is the focal issue.
Instead, he argues conflict must be seen as more than merely the issue in order to
transform the relationships and during this process the issue itself. His view on conflict
supplements the above theories and I use his model illustrate further that conflicts are not
merely static phases with focal issue.
Conflict Styles and the Transcendence Method
The concept of conflict styles refers to a person’s (communicative) orientation towards a
conflict. The original notion of conflict styles originates from Blake and Mouton’s
Managerial Grid (originally designed to describe management style). Since, numerous
theorists have further evolved new models such as Thomas-Kilmann’s (1974) Conflict
Mode Survey (Putnam, 1988). Their model is generally one of the most referred to and
describes five conflict styles in x- (cooperativeness) y- (assertiveness)-axis: Competing
(assertive, uncooperative) Avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative), Accommodating
(unassertive, cooperative), Collaborating (assertive, cooperative), and Compromising
(intermediate assertiveness and cooperativeness). Much similar Galtung (2000) has
developed his model. The styles are close to the Thomas-Kilmann model, however
Galtung employ his model to show conflict outcomes and not the style an individual
subscribe to in a conflict scenario. Galtung dictates that transcendence is the preferred
conflict outcome. It is equal to what “Collaborating” describes in the Thomas-Kilmann
model. According to Galtung each of the five conflict outcomes has a specific process or
methodology. The one of transcendence is dialogue.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 10 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
I use Galtung’s Transcendence as a tool for directing conflict. It provides a tool box of
what is necessary for turning the conflict from a destructive pattern into a constructive
pattern.
Dialogue
In Galtung’s (2000) prescription on how to transform a conflict dialogue is the key
process that leads to transcendence. He sees dialogue as a mutual brainstorm to unfold
the conflict and define new goals of the conflict parties. This relates back the individual
needs of the conflicting parties.
NVC
Non-violent Communication is another tool for avoiding destructive patterns. With Nonviolent communication (NVC) Marshall Rosenberg (2003) formulates specifically how to
communicate from needs rather than misguided goals and positions. Rosenberg (2003)
explains NVC as “communication with the heart”. It sounds very idealistic, however
what is actually meant is that he encourages empathy in both expression and listening and
at the same time he emphasizes the importance of being aware of ones needs and it that
way avoid judging, misinterpretation and revenge. Doing so, successfully, is very
important in conflict situations and thus I choose propose NVC as a tool.
Fishers Onion Model
This originally a model designed for conflict analysis. Its purpose is to uncover needs
goals and position as well as goal legitimacy among the persons involved with the
conflict.
Most of these theories ties, to large extent, to what Miller (2006) terms the feministic
approach, which is the perspective on conflict this papers adopts. A feministic approach
is to view conflict as Co-Construction. Traditionally, models and views on conflict are
rooted in Exchange, that is an emphasis on goals, transaction, offers etc., whereas, a CoConstructive view emphasizes relationships, collaboration, dialogue and mutual
understanding (Miller, 2006:211). According to her, initially, the feminist perspective
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 11 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
might be interpreted as naive. However, she does emphasize that authors have
convincingly argued for the better of the feministic approach. And this should be kept in
mind, when reading this paper.
2.1 Analysis
2.1.1 Defining Conflict
Conflict – what is it? What constitutes a conflict? An answer could be that conflict is
awareness on discrepancies, incompatible wishes and irreconcilable desires (Boulding,
1963). Ting-Toomey (1994:360) phrases it:
“[Conflict is] the perceived and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations,
processes, or outcomes between two or more parties over substantive and/or relational
issues.”
However, these definitions build on the assumption that conflict is negative and violent.
Conflict is a sign of something is moving. A conflict can be seen as potential. This is
what Galtung (2000:80) illustrates with his terms “Conflict the Destroyer” and “Conflict
the Creator”. Because of this dual headed potential inherent in conflict Galtung (2000)
defines conflict as: Attitudes + Behavior + Contradiction = Conflict (Galtung, 2000:13).
Contradiction is the incompatible (perceived or real is of no importance) goals of conflict
parties. In his logic contradiction gives rise to attitudes and behaviors regardless of the
nature (which patterns it follows) of the conflict. Then depending on the nature of the
conflict these attitudes and behaviors vary. By “nature/pattern of conflict” is understood
whether the conflict becomes the destroyer or creator of the previously mentioned dual
headed potential.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 12 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Figure 1: ABC conflict triangle (Galtung, 2000:13)
As in seen Figure 1 the operational expressions of Attitudes are hatred, distrust, apathy or
empathy; Behaviors are verbal and physical violence or non-violence. Galtung (2000:80)
explains:
“The ABC triangle may become a hatred – violence – blocked triangle: All parties get
stuck polarization and violence set in. But it may also become a triangle of challenge –
cooperation and openings.”
2.1.2 Theorizing cooperation and competition
This dual headed potential has been subject for research in many years. Having
established a basic definition of conflict, I will now move on to explain more in debt this
bipolar potential of conflict. I would like to start with the example:
In the dictatorship state of Ruritanien two men were arrested and placed in each
their cell with no possibility of communicating with one another. Authorities have
no evidence of their guilt – only suspicions. However, the mere suspicion is enough
to imprison them for one year each. Each prisoner is given the same offer: If you
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 13 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
testify against the other and he does not testify against you, you will go free, while
the other is sentenced 10 years of prison.
If both testify against each other both are sentenced five years of prison.
How should the prisoners react? The largest payoff (lesser sentence) is given if they
trust their inmate to stay loyal (not testifying). However, if they testify they have a
chance of going free and no matter what, at least they are secured only five years.
This example is called the Prisoner’s Dilemma and is a classical and widely referred to
example of game theory. It illustrates what game theory, according to Deutsch (1990),
has contributed to social psychology and conflict theory. It emphasizes that parties in
conflict have interdependent interests – the two prisoners are dependent on each other to
get the lesser collective sentence. This is the move away from viewing conflict as zerosum – win-lose, and the appreciation of non zero-sum – win-win or lose-lose.
When talking interpersonal conflicts – that is conflict between people (two or
more persons) a win-lose conflict scenario implies one loosing and the other wins. No
matter the means of decision – being by means of power of adjudication – a win-lose
outcome is negative as it implies the loser being rejected whatever his goal/needs was.
This does not require much justification – having your needs fulfilled is many places
regarded a human right. Thus win-lose outcomes should never be justified or cherished
(this will be discussed further in section 2.1.4).
This introduces cooperation to conflict management as the methodology for
handling conflicts. Deutsch (1990) phrases this, a mixed motives approach. That is to
encourage the fact that the conflict is not merely a win-lose scenario. Rather, it is has
potential of both win-lose, lose-lose and win-win. Further, he has demonstrated that
competitive and cooperative processes can be linked with those of destructive and
constructive processes.
This serves as sound justification of Galtung’s idea of the dual headed potential inherent
in conflict. This conception of conflict potential along a bipolar dimension with
destructive/competitive and constructive/cooperative as opposites is widely recognized.
The question is what gives rise to one over the other? According to Deutsch
(1990) that is the major question of social psychological research on conflict since the
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 14 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
seventies. From this research Deutsch (1990:245) has formulated his theory, Deutsch’s
crude caw of social relations:
“The characteristic processes and effects elicited by a given type of social relationship
(cooperative or competitive) also tend to elicit that type of social relationship.” Adding
further details he explains:
“Thus cooperation induces and is induced by perceived similarity in beliefs and
attitudes; a readiness to be helpful; openness in communication; trusting and friendly
attitudes; sensitivity to common interest and de-emphasis of opposed interest; an
orientation toward enhancing mutual power rather than power differences; and so on.
Similarly, competition induces and is induces by the use of tactics of coercion, threat or
deception; attempts to enhance power differences between one-self and the other; poor
communication; minimization of the awareness of similarities in values and increased
sensitivity to opposed interests; suspicious and hostile attitudes; and so on”(1990:245).
What he is saying is that, that which is already present is emphasized or built upon –
conditions perceived present initially build upon themselves. In extension, he alludes that
characteristics of the individual phenotype is determining the course of the conflict.
However, he does this with emphasis on the need for further investigation.
This demonstrates by extension, as Galtung argued with the ABC triangle, that
conflicts have a dual headed potential. With Deutsch (1990) I have demonstrated it with a
social psychology perspective as well. In addition I have explained which circumstances
give rise for the one rather than the other - destructive rather than constructive. This
papers concerns conflicts turning destructive – when conflicts go bad. Initially, if the
circumstances for constructive patterns are not present, what can transform the conflict
into a constructive pattern instead? As I will emphasize in the next section destructive
conflicts situation is where conflict impacts company performance.
Unwanted side effects of interpersonal conflicts:

Less work out put

Slower decision-making process

Stress induced on employees – stress itself leading to series of more and less
serious collateral damage

Worsened social environment
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 15 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication

06-02-2016
Social harassment – and full spectrum of what follows from that.
Implicitly illustrated with these examples is that a conflict is not merely a single standing
issue. Conflicts evolve and these evolutions I will now try to explain in further detail.
2.1.3 Conflict Cycle – episode, epicenter and history
When conflict goes bad – individuals get stuck – the conflict becomes destructive on
other levels than the mere obvious. A conflict has a life on its own. Galtung (2000)
summarizes the life cycle of a conflict:

Any actor with unrealized goals (from Contradiction) feels frustrated, the more
basic a goal, the more frustrated.

Frustration may lead to aggression turning inward and outward as attitudes of
hatred and behavior of violence.

Hatred and violence may be directed at the holders of the goals standing in the
way – that what is prohibiting the actor from getting to his goal.

Violence is intended to harm and hurt and thus may be breeding a spiral of
counter-violence as defense and/or revenge.

When revenge is revenged that induced spiral becomes a meta-conflict over the
goals of preserving and destroying.
It is in this way a conflict gets an almost eternal life of its own. Galtung (2000:13)
explains further:
“The original, root, conflict resides into the background. Conflicts may combine into
complex conflict formations with many parties and many goals. The normal conflict is
complex and not easily mapped.”
Galtung (2000) point out that the spiral of conflict grows and thus moves away from
initial root of conflict if the patterns are not changed. Violence breeds violence – that old
saying is depicted in another model The Conflict Staircase or Conflict Escalation Steps
(Hammerich & Frydensberg, 2006:38). It describes seven steps escalating on each other.
1. Disagreement: Parties’ paths for reaching a goal contradict. Conflicts staying at
this level remain constructive.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 16 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
2. Personification: Root conflict slides into the background. The problem suddenly
relates to a person. It is someone’s fault.
3. Problem increase: New problems arise or old ones blush up.
4. Conversation is given up: Distorted communication and parties no longer talk to
each other – they talk about each other.
5. Enemy imaging: Root conflict is forgotten and replaced with a black-and-white
world view where the only goal is to make the other part surrender and apologize.
At this point the conflict is like a magnet – it attracts all attention and uses great
energy resources. Deutsch would say an otherwise mixed motive conflict is now
purely perceived as win-lose.
6. Open hostility: Violence appears.
7. Polarization: “No room for both of us!”
The Conflict Staircase provides a clear picture of how a conflict can escalate. In that
sense it serves to remind us the importance of addressing conflicts as it sheds light on the
possible impact, and influence of what starts as an innocent conflict. Companies need to
be willing and capable of addressing conflicts because they otherwise easily escalate and
collateral influences grow almost exponential.
Jean Paul Lederach (2002) has made a model that captures this problematic
aspect. The model focuses on relationships – he distinguishes between the episode/issue
of the conflict. It is the goal that is not being fulfilled – what Galtung would term the
contradiction. In a sphere surrounding the episode is the epicenter/pattern which is what
the issue arise from and on the same time it contributes to. Finally, surrounding epicenter
is the history, which is yet a larger conception of the epicenter/patterns. In that way every
conflict is growing out of a certain pattern – a history of relationship between the conflict
parties.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 17 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Figure 2 Lederach model of the presenting situation (Lederach, 2002:35)
Figure 2 conceptualizes the whole idea that conflict is not merely a single instance.
Rather, it is a series of incident that makes up a pattern. Allow me for a moment to refer
back to the example I gave in the introduction. It is difficult to look at the conflict
between Iben and I and point to a specific cause of it. The situation of the growing
checkout queues and who should open a new cashier checkout is definitely a returning
issue. However, what are the causes of it. Is it that I have already chosen to hate Iben or
do we really block each other goals?
According to Lederach (2002) his model of the presenting situation can be used to
remember the focus on relationships and that issues both grow out of and contribute to
relationships. This brings us back Deutsch’ Crude Law of Social Relationships. Thus to
some degree the conflict between Iben and I was inherent in out relationship or out
perception of our relationship. Now the conflict is breeding itself.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 18 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
The question is again how we can transform destructive patterns – how can we transform
destructive relationships?
However, before I move on to answering that question I need to explain the concept of
this paper’s primary premise. That premise provides us with the answer to that specific
question of how we transform a destructive conflict. Having talked about the conflict
cycle and how a conflict ought to be viewed upon, I shall now explain what motivates an
individual – and more important – how an individual act and behave accordingly.
2.1.4 The individual – needs, goals and positions
Every human being acts according our needs. We are motivated by our needs (Maslow,
1954 in Miller, 2006). As illustrated by figure 3 Galtung (2000) describes our need as the
foundation from which individuals formulate their goals. To fulfill such goals individuals
take positions. This way of conceiving the individual and its behavior is closely related to
the Onion model described by Fisher, et al (2000). They describe the outer layer of an
onion as the positions – what is said out loud in public. The inner layer is the interests
behind what is being said. Whereas the core of the onion is the actual needs (figure 5).
From Fisher et al (2000:28):
Positions are what people in a conflict say they want.
Interests refer to what people really need or fear and what motivates them.
Most often goals are legit – they stem from a basic need, and fulfillment of this
needs and its methodology is in line with the law. However, when conflicts escalate and
the goal is merely revenge it becomes non-legit. When a goal no longer originates from a
need – or is based on a false belief that a certain goal will fulfill certain needs it no longer
justifies as a legit goal. One party may hold the perception that her goal is legit, whereas
the other party may perceive that same goal as non-legit. In such cases it is necessary to
uncover the reasons for the parties to holding their respectively beliefs of the goal
(Galtung, 2000:34-35).
Galtung defines basic needs as:

Survival, as opposed to death, individually and collectively.

Well-being, meaning food, shelter, clothes, health.

Identity, something to live for – not only live from.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 19 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication

06-02-2016
Freedom, having choices for the three above.
(2000:84)
Marshall Rosenberg, another theorist and practitioner, formulates much related basic
needs:

Physical survival

Integrity

Autonomy

Celebration of Life

Self-expression

Mental

Spiritual Energy

Interdependence

Nurturance
(2003:210)
Unlike Maslow both Rosenberg and Galtung underline, that there is no hierarchical
structure of the needs. One may be just as important as another. An ad hoc hierarchy may
be defined as understanding of the conflict parties grow. Galtung (2000:84) exemplifies:
“People are known to sacrifice their lives for their religious and cultural identity and to
sacrifice well-being in the struggle for freedom. Rather, it is necessary to listen to their
[conflict parties] definitions of their needs and priorities.”
A basic conflict is over basic goals – such goal could be such basic needs. Basic needs
serve to explain why some conflict becomes hard and protracted.
The conflict’s contradiction is apparent in the goals of the parties. Thus the scope of the
goal needs to be changed. According to Galtung (2000:84) is the most important to direct
attention to, when transforming a conflict:
“Basic needs must be preserved, even enhanced, for all parties; they cannot be negotiated
away.” Thus the transformation of scope of goals must be done in a manner that still
preserves the basic needs.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 20 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Figure 3 Model illustrating Galtungs understanding of needs, goals and positions.
As mentioned above, Galtung (2000) emphasizes the complexity of conflicts – who
wants what, why and with what purpose? Fisher, et al (2000) put much emphasis on
conflict analysis. They employ the Onion model to analyze motives of the conflicting
parties, because it assists the analyzer in thinking deeper and broader in terms of needs,
interests and positions of the involved parties. Sometimes gabs between needs, interests
and positions come to display. My need may be acceptance and appreciation of me and
my work. At the same time I may hold the impression that it is of lower value to be
sitting at the checkout line rather than in the customers’ service.
Thus it would seem like a degradation of me and lead me to feel less accepted and
appreciated. This connection between how I perceive an expressed position (I do not
want to open a checkout line) to fulfill my needs (Acceptance/appreciation) is not always
clear to the other or an audience. Thus it may be perceived as a gab between, what I say
and what I need.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 21 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Fisher, et al (2000) explain that such gabs between actual needs and the position taken is
often a result of (bad) communication between mistrusting parties as they wish to conceal
themselves in order to maintain power. Parties assume that to reveal needs is to surrender
power. This point is backed up by Deutsch, et al (2006) as they outline a typical husband
and wife conflict:
“The destructive process resulted in (as well as from) justified mutual suspicion; correctly
perceived mutual hostility; a win-lose orientation; inability to understand and to
empathize with the other’s needs and vulnerabilities; and reluctance – based on stubborn
pride, nursed grudges and fear of humiliation – to initiate or to respond to a positive,
generous action so as to break out of the escalating viscous cycle in which they were
trapped.”
As a result almost any issue turned into a struggle in which the spouse felt that his or her
self-esteem or core identity was at stake. In this example the parties are already high up
the escalation staircase steps.
Thus is it important in conflict situation to probe what Galtung (2000) terms deep texts.
With this term text he refers to a goal – a rhetorical move to reach the goal. Deep texts
are deep goals that sometimes the party itself may not be aware of and because of that
they need to be uncovered during the conflict transformation.
In summary, the individual have certain profound needs. We (as an individual) act
in order to attain those needs. In these actions we formulate goals which in our opinion
lead to fulfillment of our needs. From our actions it is not always easy to identify what
needs we seek fulfilled – and as soon as the conflict escalates focus is turned away from
the focal issue. Then we have a destructive conflict.
Earlier, I posed the question: How we can transform destructive conflict? Now, I will try
to answer it.
In the Galtung sense to transform a destructive conflict would mean change the
ABC triangle – meaning all three corners should be addressed. A compromise as conflict
solution would merely address C, the contradiction. In Deutsch’s sense it would mean to
change numerous operationalized factors such as similarity in beliefs and attitudes; a
readiness to be helpful; openness in communication; trusting and friendly attitudes;
sensitivity to common interest and de-emphasis of opposed interest; an orientation toward
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 22 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
enhancing mutual power rather than power differences; and thus encourage cooperation.
In the Lederach sense it would mean to change the relationships. For Fisher, et al (2000)
it would require the parties to understand how they interrelate and gain more from each
other than on their own.
In my sense, these are all the same – and each ties to the feministic approach briefly
outlined by Miller (2006:210). Therefore I would like to propose the main idea from
Galtung’s (2000) Transcendence Method as the method for changing conflict patterns
from “Conflict the Destroyer” into “Conflict the Creator”. His main idea is that conflict
parties ought to strive for a fifth outcome – what game theory and Deutsch would label
win-win outcome. His idea originates from much earlier work on conflict styles and how
individuals behave in conflict situations. Therefore, I will now elaborate on the concept
of Conflict Styles.
2.1.5 Transcendence Method and Conflict Styles
Imagine for a moment you find yourself in a situation in which your survival depends on
one orange. Problem is, another person is exactly as dependent on this same orange for
his or her survival as you are – a conflict arises. How should you solve this conflict?
Galtung (2000:21) defines five outcomes:
1. One prevails; another loses – determined by power, luck or adjudication.
2. The other prevails, first loses.
3. Withdrawal – neither gets the orange, parties walk away or put on freeze
(ceasefire).
4. Compromise – the orange is split in two.
5. Transcendence – get more than the orange.
Applying Deutsch’s vocabulary from game theory it would be framed like this:
1. Win – lose.
2. Lose – win.
3. Lose – lose.
4. Lose – lose.
5. Win – win.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 23 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Figure 4 Five possible conflict outcomes (Galtung, 2000:21)
These outcomes in such two-dimensional axis are what theorists have labeled Conflict
Styles. Originally, these were formulated by Blake and Mouton (1964) in their
Managerial Grid, though with another purpose (Miller, 2006; Putnam, 1988; Thomas,
1988; Oetzel & Ting-Tomey, 2003). The Managerial Grid laid out the foundation with its
two dimensions “concern for people” vs. “concern for production” in a management
scenario. These changed to “concern for self” vs. “concern for the other” in a conflict
situation.
Most commonly used is Thomas-Kilmann’s (1974) Conflict Mode Survey. Their model
describes five conflict styles in a “cooperative” vs. “assertiveness” two-dimensional
diagram which consist of the styles: Competing (assertive, uncooperative) Avoiding
(unassertive, uncooperative), Accommodating (unassertive, cooperative), Collaborating
(assertive, cooperative), and Compromising (intermediate assertiveness and
cooperativeness).
Typically, conflict styles or modes have typically been used to describe how individuals
act or behave in conflict situations and it remains a question whether individuals have a
certain geno-typical mode/style or the applied style changes with the context of the
conflict (Putnam, 1988; Thomas, 1988). Contributing to that Oetzel & Ting-Toomey
(2003:601) state:
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 24 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
“Individuals have a predominant conflict style, but it is possible to alter conflict styles in
regards to a specific situation.”
Deutsch’s would consent to this with respect to his crude law of social interaction.
Galtung (2000) does not focus on describing behavior. Rather, his model is a taxonomy
of conflict outcomes. He proposes, what he terms Transcendence (see figure 4) always
should be strived for – and in that way transform the destructive conflict and turn it
constructive. (See Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 1, No. 3, 1988, Sage for
full analysis of the development of the five-style models).
According to Oetzel & Ting-Toomey (2003) there are numerous approaches for
explaining conflict styles. The primary approaches, however, are the five-style and threestyle models. Above are examples of the five-stile models. The three-style models differ.
Proponents of the three-style models found that those five styles can be joined together to
form these three styles (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003):

Control, forcing, dominating [No. 1 of Galtung’s outcomes]

Solution-oriented, issue-oriented, integrating [No. 4 and 5 of Galtung’s outcomes]

Non-confrontal, smoothing, avoiding [No. 3 of Galtung’s outcomes]
In my opinion this conception fails to appreciate the crucial difference between
compromise and transcendence. Compromise ought to be framed as a lose-lose outcome.
Parties get only half of what they initially wanted. Galtung (2000:23) formulates:
“A flat compromise satisfies nobody and does not provide with opportunities to move
forward.”
His point is in perfect line with the pivotal point in Lederach’s model of presenting
situation: Compromise will not change relationships. Compromise merely addresses the
episode.
Thus I find a five-style mode more preferable. And in this case when seeking answer to
how to transform a destructive conflict, I find Galtung’s (figure 4) most appropriate, as he
with transcendence encloses or captures, and thus appreciate, what is necessary for such
transformation. He dictates:
“Transcendence introduces a new reality, opening a new landscape. To transform a
conflict is to transplant it to that new reality. To transform a conflict would mean to
transcend the goals of the conflict parties, defining some other goals, lifting a conflict
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 25 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
out of the bed the parties have prepared for that conflict, including the discourses to
ensure that the incompatibility looks insurmountable, embedding it at a more
promising place.”
In other words, through transcendence parties need to uncover which new goals can
satisfy their needs and change the situation so that parties can get more than they
wanted/what they originally wanted is less interesting. In that way the conflict will turn
more likely turn constructive.
As previously stated, according to Deutsch (1990), cooperation induces itself (see this
paper’s section on cooperation and competition). Therefore, as soon as the pattern of the
conflict changes from destructive to constructive it has an impact on the relationship – on
the epicenter/context between the conflict parties.
Thus transcendence holds the potential of resetting the destructive cycle of meta-conflict
that steadily takes the conflict higher up the escalation step.
As mentioned compromise addresses the contradiction, but in a manner that does
not satisfy the attitudes and behavior connected to the contradiction (Galtung, 2000).
Further, he emphasizes that a focus merely on the behavior, reducing “violence”, risks
sweeping the problem away without addressing the core contradiction. Too, a focus
merely on attitudes risks leading to the assumption that the problem is caused by
individuals whose vicious minds are hateful and distorted. In that sense an attitude focus
leaves the impression of trying to foster correct minds and fail to realize consequences of
unmeet needs. Because of this Galtung (2000) emphasizes the importance of keeping all
aspects of his triangle in mind in order to end up with a process characterized by less
hatred, nonviolent actions, wherein the contradictions recede.
Having established Galtung’s conception of transcendence as the outcome to
strive for in the pursuit of changing destructive patterns I will now propose three tools for
transcending a conflict.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 26 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
2.2 Tools for transcendence
The three tools I would like to expound is dialogue, nonviolent communication and again
the Onion model. The later two could be understood as tools for usage in the dialogue;
however, I find they are crucial to an extent that they need to stand alone. Before I move
into these specifically, I shall briefly introduce the concept of the conflict worker. Most
often the term is used to describe outside sources, which are hired or invited to work with
a given conflicts. In this paper, though, the term has no precise meaning. Here the
conflict worker might as well be the employee involved with a conflict. In that sense the
conflict parties become the conflict workers as well.
2.2.1 Dialogue
The goal with transcendence is to redefine the situation so that what looked incompatible
is no longer viewed that way. This can be succeeded through dialogue (Galtung,
2000:22). He states that to transcend a conflict, dialogue is the process.
“The best method is the dialogue, with each other, but perhaps to start with better with a
[third party],” (Galtung, 2000:23).
Dialogue is a mutual brainstorm, which by the means of Empathy brings out the stories of
the conflict parties. The task is to empower each other to be creative. Then through this
Creativity the parties uncover new ways seeing or understanding the reality. In this
situation new mutual acceptable goals may be formulated, satisfying all parties.
Galtung (2000:69) underlines the importance of not judging and debating/fighting on the
words and on who is right and wrong:
“The task is understand the truth of the other parties, as deeply as they do themselves, and
then search for an acceptable and sustainable outcome,” and on method he emphasizes:
“Your method is cognitive and emotional, not the power of the stick (thread) and the
carrot (reward).”
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 27 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
2.2.2 Nonviolent Communication
Another tool for transcendence is Nonviolent Communication. It is a communication tool
that enables the speaker to both express his own needs and also lure out the needs of the
other party. In that sense it can be employed in the dialogue process; or it can be thought
of as a tool on it’s own as it too has the potential to prevent escalation of conflicts,
because it empowers individuals to speak merely from actual needs (and thus revenge
itself will never be the goal as in escalated meta-conflicts). In relation to Fisher’s Onionmodel, nonviolent communication put an equal sign between need and position.
The nonviolent communication process consists of four steps that the communicator
chronologically goes through in his or her speech (Rosenberg, 2003):
Observations

Conditions and behaviors that are affecting us.

An observation statement should be free of judgment or blame,

Describe the situation in a way that anyone involved could clearly observe.
Feelings

Describe the feelings that arise from the observations.
Needs

Needs contributing to those feelings.

Needs can include anything from food, shelter, rest and safety, to respect,
appreciation, creativity and hope
Request

What is necessary to fulfill your need?

Requests can be of others or of you, and can be for some immediate action or for
something in the future.
The word formula for the four steps is:
1. When I see/hear/think about… [the observations]
2. I feel… [the feelings]
3. Because I have a need for… [the needs]
4. So could you… [the request]
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 28 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
In this way, the communicator justifies both arisen feelings and the request with his or
her needs. At all steps the communicator should stay from using charged expressions to
avoid offending the counterpart and thus leaving a possibility to misguide or derail the
dialogue.
The process goes both ways: Can the four steps be identified when someone else
is speaking to you, and what can you do to help fulfill possible requests being put
forwards due to a need arising from feelings in some situation. The point is empathy. As
Galtung (2000) points out conflict workers are at the danger of unwillingly psychiatrize,
criminalize or idiotize the involved members. That would leave an unfortunate tendency
of wanting to treat, punish or educate. Galtung stress that the conflict worker needs to
enter as tabula rasa and “as a fellow human, bringing in general conflict knowledge and
skills (dialogue), with compassion and perseverance, and no hidden agendas.”
2.2.3 Onion Model
As already touched upon the Onion model (figure 5) can be utilized as a tool to help the
conflict worker keep the dialogue directed on uncovering needs and interests behind
expressed positions and in that way find a common ground between the conflict parties.
Figure 5 Onion Model revealing what parties need and want (Fisher, et al, 2000:27).
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 29 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
2.3 Recommendations
Until now, this paper has only dealt with the difficulties of the mechanics in conflicts. I
have not addressed directly my problem statement. Thus, in order address this question
specifically I will now propose recommendations building on the knowledge elucidated
so far. Companies could incorporate these recommendations in order to prevent
inevitable interpersonal conflicts turn competitive and destructive, and thus prevent
negative collateral impact on company performance.
Leung (2008:174) dictates:
“Suppressing bad feelings does not eliminate conflict. It only drives bitterness
underground and creates an unhealthy and dishonest relationship between the parties.”
Thus first of all companies need to realize that conflicts are not necessarily a negative
situation. They need to adopt and truly appreciate the Human Resource Approach to
Conflict Management:
“Conflict is viewed as a possible means for growth and development in the
organization. Conflicting parties are encouraged to collaborate on solutions that will
satisfy both parties and contribute to better future organizational functioning” (Miller,
2006:212).
How do companies encourage this?
With point of departure in Lederach’s points on presenting focal issues not being the key
to changing the relationship, think back on my opening example in the introduction: A
present issue is would be one of who should take care of opening an extra checkout line.
If we with or without help from a mediator solved this issue, the pattern of Iben and I
conflicting would still exist and next time the checkout queues are building up we would
have the exact same presenting issue. Therefore a present issue must be solved in a way
the addresses not only the immediate focal issue. Rather it needs to be transforming both
the presenting focal issue and the relationship. As Lederach (2003:35) nails it:
“The potential for constructive change lies in our ability to recognize, understand and
redress what has happened.”
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 30 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Companies and employees need to realize this. A way of pursuing what Lederach here
states is through dialogue and NVC (nonviolent communication) – the end goal is to
transcend the conflict. Iben and I need to uncover why we oppose.
Therefore, my recommendations for what companies need to be doing in order to
avoid destructive patterns in interpersonal conflict between individuals in the company is
simply education, training and information. But most of all, companies need to
appreciate this (feministic) approach. Such appreciation could express itself in first of all
giving space for the dialogue. That is to not end conflict with regulations, rules or orders.
Further, it is to encourage employees to deal with their problems and conflicts themselves
instead of asking a superior to solve the matter. If absolutely necessary supervisor could
assist, however merely as mediators to guide the conflicting persons. Thus it should be
emphasized that this training is not to be regarded only relevant for subordinate
employees. The training and education should not consider rank, positions and
hierarchical structures.
Additionally, education, training and information would not only provide the means for
transforming destructive patterns. Using NVC, destructive patterns can, potentially, be
avoided from the beginning, because of the “speaking from needs” and “listening
compassionately” even though the social conditions (those of Deutsch, 1990) for
cooperative patterns do not exist initially. The idea of a certain communicative method to
avoid bad conflicts is also dealt with in Jameson (2004).
Education, training and information mandatory for employees and company
appreciation of dialogue are my recommendations. Additionally, I would like to pass on
selected recommendations based on Deutsch (1990:254-8):
1. Become aware of the causes and consequences of violence and its alternatives
Understand that violence begets violence. Be aware of what makes you angry.
Learn the healthy and unhealthy ways of expressing this anger and learn how to
channel it in ways not violent and not likely to provoke violence from the other.
2. Face conflicts rather than avoid it
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 31 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Recognize that you may want avoid a conflict because of what follows from it.
Learn your typical ways of evading conflicts and become aware of its negative
consequences – e.g.: irritability, tension and persistence of the problem.
3. Respect yourself and your interests as well as the other and his/her interests
Personal insecurity and sense of vulnerability often make people complicate
conflicts more than necessary – define even the softest conflict as win-lose.
“Helping people develop a respect for themselves and their interests enables them
to see their conflicts in reasonable proportion and facilitates their constructive
confrontation,” (Deutsch, 1990:255). In same manner, helping people respect the
other and his/her interests will inhibit use of competitive tactics.
4. Distinguish Clearly Between “Interests” and “Positions”
Though positions may oppose, interests may not necessarily oppose. When
interests are revealed suitable solutions may be found.
5. Explore interests of all conflict parties to identify common and compatible
interests
If parties identify the shared interests it becomes easier to deal with interest
perceived opposing.
6. Conflict definition
Strive for conflict definitions in the smallest terms possible. Avoid definitions that
put the conflict between people or between principles.
7. Listen and speak attentively
Actively attempt to take the other’s perspective when listening. Listen to the
other’s meanings and emotions in such a way that he both feels and is understood.
Likewise, you should communicate your thoughts and feelings to make him
understand how you think and feel. “The feeling of being understood, as well as
effective communication, enormously facilitates constructive resolution,”
(Deutsch, 1990:255).
8. Be alert on yours and other’s natural tendencies to misjudge
Bias, misperception, misjudgment and stereotyped thinking interfere with
communication and makes empathy difficult. This impairs problem-solving.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 32 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
Therefore you should recognize and admit your own tendencies of this in order
the clear the air and facilitate similar acknowledgment by the other.
9. Firm, fair and friendly
Adopt the ability to be firm, in resisting intimidation exploitation and revenge;
fair in keeping to your own moral standards and not reciprocating immoral
behavior; friendly in the sense that you are willing to initiate and/or reciprocate
cooperation.
As more or less explicitly evident these recommendations from Deutsch are much similar
to what I propose with the Transcend Method, NVC and the Onion. The key for
companies remains to teach this to employees and encourage the use of those principles.
3.1 Conclusion
I started this paper with the quote by Darwin: ”All nature is at war, one organism with
another, or with external nature.”
I use his quote to overstate my case on the need for conflict management knowledge. Of
course we would not recognize ourselves to be at direct war everyday – however, the
quote can serve as a reminder, that conflict is part of us moving forward – part of
evolution. Thus we, and companies, need to ensure that we utilize these conflicts to the
better.
Addressing competitive, thus destructive conflicts is important, because they
induce themselves. According to Deutsch’s crude law of social relations, perceived social
relations induce a conflict pattern. If this initially is competitive it will spread like rings in
water leaving space for new rings of competitive patterns to be born. An escalated
destructive conflict is born.
Thus conflict resolution addressing only what Lederach (2003) terms the episode (focal
issue) of the presenting situation is insufficient.
Therefore, I have chosen to highlight Galtung’s (2000) Transcendence Method for
guiding conflict resolution. It emphasizes dialogue both to address relationships and to
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 33 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
uncover initial needs and what Fisher, et al terms interest (goals). The point of the
dialogue is dis-embed the conflict and through creativity and empathy embed it elsewhere
where all party interests are satisfied and needs are being fulfilled – this qualifies for a
transcendence outcome.
In this way, the destructive spiral of conflict described with the Conflict Staircase is
reversed.
From this, I have proposed certain recommendation companies could follow. The logical
recommendations for companies would be to train employees to employ the transcend
method and use nonviolent communication (NVC).
However, for companies the goal is to ensure that conflicts do not escalate. That is
ensuring it does not move up the steps of the Conflict Staircase. When that happens a
superior is typically called in to settle the conflict once and for all. According to Galtung
(2000) this intervention of a superior often results in a win-lose or lose-lose outcome.
Instead, in this situation the superior must act as a mediator helping the dialogue, guiding
the parties toward transcendence. This process is time consuming. In order to avoid often
use of third party involvement, conflict escalation should be avoided. And for this I
propose the use of the NVC techniques. However, it is too my conviction that the mere
awareness among employees on the nature of conflict, their patterns of evolution and
resolution will contribute to fewer escalating conflicts.
Thus I have recommend three things:

Education, training and information - of employees not regarding level, position
or employment in the company. Topics should be what this paper addresses.

Space/room/time: Employees should be given space opportunity for handling
conflicts in the trained manner.

Encouragement: Likewise, official company policies should encourage use of
conflict handling in this manner. Both companies and employees need to realize,
that, which Lederach pointed out: “the potential for constructive change lies in
our ability to recognize, understand and redress what has happened, ”(2003:35)
Lastly, I have chosen to pass on nine selected recommendation based Deutsch (1990). All
nine illustrate more or less the same points as does the Transcend Method, Nonviolent
Communication and the Onion.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 34 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
3.1.1 End notes
Looking at an immediate causality (see figure 6) of the reality this paper concerns I have
explained the causal relationship between effect (inherent problem) and solution. This
includes some description of effect/problem and solution. However, I do not investigate
the relationship between the solution and cause (or new causes the solution might lead
to). Because of that, I cannot really say anything on the effectiveness of the
recommendations given. Theoretically, they should address the problem. Now the actual
results caused by them are topic for further investigation.
Figure 6 Causality of immediate reality used for phase focus
Characters 48,996 = 22.3 pages
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 35 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
4.1 Bibliography
Boulding, K. (1963): Conflict and Defense. Harper & Row, New York.
Deutsch, Morton (1973): “The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive
Processes.” Yale University Press, New Haven/London, UK
Deutsch, Morton (1990): “Sixty Years of Conflict”. In The International Journal of
Conflict Management. Vol 1, No.3, pp. 237-267. 1990. Emerald, USA.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T., Marcus, E.C. (2006): “The Handbook of Conflict
Resolution: theory and practice.” 2nd Edition, Jossy-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1964): “The Managerial Grid.” Gulf, Houston
Fisher, S., Ludin, J., Williams, S., Abdi, D.I., Smith, R. & Williams, S. (2000): “Working
with Conflict: Skills and Strategies for action.” Zed Books, London, UK
Galtung, Johan (2000): “Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (The Transcend
Method)”. United Nations Disaster Management Training Programme, UN.
Hammerich, E. and Frydensberg, K. (2006): “Konflikt og Kontakt” - “Conflict and
Contact”. Centre of Conflict Resolution, Hovedland, DK
Lederach, J.P. (2003): “This Little Book of Conflict Transformation.” Good Books,
Intercourse, PA
Leung, A.S.M. (2008): “Interpersonal conflict and resolution strategies.” In Team
Performance Management. Vol. 14, No. ¾, pp: 165-178. Emerald Publishing.
Miller, Katherine (2006): “Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes”,
Fourth edition, Thomson Wadsworth, USA
Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S. (2003): ”Face Concerns in Interpersonal Conflict: A
Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Face Negotiation Theory.” In Communication
Research, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp 599-624. Sage Publications
Putnam, L. Linda (1988): “Communication and Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations”.
In Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 1, No. 3, 1988. Sage Publications.
Saunders, H.H. (1999): “A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform
Racial and Ethnic Conflicts”. St. Martin’s Press.
Sherratt, Yvonne. (2005).
Chapter 3: Schleiermacher.
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 36 of 37
Interpersonal Conflict Communication
06-02-2016
In: Sherratt, Yvonne: Continental philosophy of social science. hermeneutics, genealogy
and critical theory from ancient Greece to the twenty-first century, pp. 58-62.
Cambridge University Press
Skinner, Quentin. (1986).
Chapter : Hans-Georg Gadamer.
In: Skinner, Quentin: The return of grand theory in the human sciences, Reprinted, pp.
21-39.
Cambridge University Press
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994): “Manageging intercultural conflicts effectively.” In L. Samovar
& R. Porter’s Intercultural Communication: A reader. 7th ed., 360-372. Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA
Thomas, K.W. (1988): “The Conflict-Handling Modes: Toward More Precise Theory”. In
Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 1, No. 3, 1988. Sage Publications.
Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R. H. (1974): “Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument”.
Xicom, Tuxedo, NY
Bachelor Thesis, MMC
Page 37 of 37