An Integrative Model of Conflict Resolution Systems and Strategies:
Weaving the Tapestry of Spiral Dynamics into Negotiation
(A Draft for your Consideration, revised Jan 2008)
by Harry Webne-Behrman,
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Introduction: The Need for a New Conceptualization
Traditional models of conflict resolution tend to focus on the assessment of needs and interests between
parties in a two-dimensional matrix, assigning general categories of behavior to describe the likely
outcomes of bargaining behaviors. While such models have served to heighten awareness of the
possibilities within such frameworks, they are severely limited by a number of factors:
1. They treat party interests as uni-dimensional (horizontally), an over-simplification that aids disaggregation of variables, but which limits our analytical understanding of the negotiation
phenomena at work;
2. They view interests as singularly presented or revealed by the parties, rather than emerging in
response to stimuli within the negotiation process that catalyze deeper levels of meaning to be
revealed emergently;
3. They focus solely on behaviors, assuming a somewhat rationalistic approach that denies the
complexities of the psychological (emotional) and procedural dimensions of the dispute to be
negotiated, as well as the physical and cognitive responses to the conflict that evolve during the
negotiation process;
4. They fail to account for the vMemes that differentiate the worldviews of parties, their capacity to
embrace varying levels of complexity, or the communication strategies (i.e., language) required in
order to either escalate polarization or resolve positions through an integrative set of standards
that may be applied to the situation at hand.
There are likely additional factors, but to begin by understanding that these factors, in themselves are
limitations of the traditional paradigm begets the need for a new way of thinking about conflict. We find
that the language of integral theory (http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm) from Ken Wilber and
spiral dynamics (http://www.spiraldynamics.net/) from Don Beck offer ways to express this new
conceptualization of conflict resolution in some exciting ways.
A New Model
I need to find a better way to represent these images on the computer… so I’ll just use this typology for
now (it’s from Integral Naked, a fine website for this material, “Introduction to Integral Theory and
Practice, 2003-2004). Truth represents the “I-Thou” dimension of conflict… interpersonal, me vs. you
kind of stuff… the competition b/w our positions gets expressed in typical schemas as “competition”
vs. “accommodation,” with an inherent tension along the distributive ‘win-lose’ axis that runs from the
Y-axis to the X-axis. However, the integration of these interactions, represented diagonally through the
center of this area emerging from the intersections of the XYZ axes, represents a collaborative conflict
style and ‘win-win’ processes.
The Beauty dimension should be considered 3-dimensionally here, folding forward so that the
interactions of Truth and Beauty provide a framework for seeking the ‘3rd win’ as Don Beck would term
it: We engage now around the organizational/gaia level, in addition to the interpersonal level. So
integration through the imagined ‘center’ of the spiral here represents a win-win-win’ process.
The Goodness dimension represents disintegration, the negative spin of conflictive energies, interacting
at both the organizational and interpersonal levels. If you consider drawing the integrative line
southwest through b/w the Y and Z axes, you will find ‘disintegration’ in its fullest sense: Chaos leading
to mass violence and the breakdown of all social systems (e.g., Darfur).
Levels and stages of development can be useful for better understanding the conditions in which people
operate and the needs/interests likely to be most expressive under such conditions. The following
diagram, also from the Integral Naked article, helps clarify the range of levels:
Don Beck and his conceptualization of spiral dynamics then applied these diversified understandings of
personal, interpersonal and societal needs to develop models of organizations, politics, etc. He has also
applied this thinking to diverse conflictive situations in South Africa, the Netherlands, and the Middle
East (you might want to check his Middle East initiative out at:
http://www.humanemergencemiddleeast.org/ ).
A more straight-forward and practical application of integral theory to conflict was demonstrated in the
work of Darcy Riddell on the “Great Bear Rainforest” dispute in British Columbia. The approach led to
a sustainable, integral framework for solutions to an entrenched conflict among First Nations people,
loggers, paper companies, the Canadian Government, and other parties. You can read about the dispute
at: http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/09/11/GreatBear/ Be sure to scroll down the article and see Darcy
Riddell’s brief discussion of the integral approach she used in this dispute.
What This Means in Practice
I am coming to realize that this model allows us to better understand the complexities of parties as they
are presented in the contexts and environments of the conflicts in which they occur. These are different
understandings than those arrived at through ‘high context-low context’ cultural distinctions (as offered
by Stella Ting-Toomey, among others). Rather, the spiral AQAL model allows us to see how the
vMEME holons of various contexts clarify the most succinctly expressed needs of the parties at that
point in time. In so doing, the mediator or other intervener can more readily understand which sets of
needs will be primary for the parties at that point, the language that best expresses those needs, and the
solutions that may be more readily understood and embraced in responding to the needs of the conflict.
This does not necessarily mean that the solutions will be sustained over a long period of time, but it
does mean that if they are able to take hold at this time, a foundation of trust can be built and success
can then begin to be sought as a ‘hope’ among the parties. In this sense, the “3rd Win” is that of the
organization or society... the win is the opportunity (or audacity, to use Barak Obama’s term) of hope
being allowed to emerge.
In systems that are degenerating, where hope has been lost, putting a ‘floor’ on the degenerating
circumstances can be a powerful moment of insight and stabilization. I have worked in many
organizations where hope has been lost and where energy has dissipated from the participants, long
before I have gotten involved as a mediator. I have found that the parties are ‘over-ripe’ in their
experience with impasse, so even proven strategies find strong resistance... not from self-righteousness,
but from exhaustion. If we can use an integral model of conflict resolution to reframe our approaches as
mediators to better understand the manner in which the parties are currently experiencing their interests,
it may be a tool that opens up new possibilities to engage around conflicts that would otherwise
continue to degenerate and destroy.
Comments? Thoughts about This Article? Send me an e-mail at: hwebnebehrman@ohr.wisc.edu
-- Harry Webne-Behrman