Do We Ever Really Resolve Conflicts? Try Conflict Management

For practitioners of organizational development, there are two schools of thought when it comes to handling conflict. Some advocate conflict resolution, while others subscribe to conflict management. 

Ponder the difference between the notion of conflict resolution and that of conflict management. Conflict resolution means that a conflict is solved, settled, or finalized. While managing conflict means that the conflict is mediated, handled, and coped with: in short, there is an agreement to disagree yet move forward together on areas in common.

I am of the latter school of thought – conflict management – for the very simple reason that conflicts are based on closely-held beliefs and values that infrequently change. For example, how would one ever resolve some contemporary and contentious conflicts in American politics, such as abortion, the right to bear arms, and/or medical intervention for trans youth?

Consider Why Conflicts Exist

Typically, conflicts exist because there is a fundamental difference in experiences, history, heritage, and/or culture: Fundamentally a difference in values. Usually, values are closely held and rarely change or evolve. If one subscribes to this reasoning, then conflicts between those with differing values will almost never be resolved. However, they can be managed.

The How-To’s – Managing Conflict:

• State what the issue is from two basic and divergent (perhaps extreme) perspectives.
• Identify what the parties disagree about.
• Identify what the parties have in common.
• Develop strategies, tactics, and/or actions that build upon what the parties have in common.

This model has been tried and true and can be applied to a variety of disagreements/conflicts, even those that are seemingly intractable. As a result of recent Supreme Court rulings, let’s tackle two of those in the spotlight now: the right to bear arms, and abortion.

Example: The Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms

The Issue:

• Proponents believe that the right for individuals to own arms is embedded in the Constitution, and should not be abridged/taken away.
• Opponents believe that gun violence and the killing of innocents is untenable and the right for individuals to bear arms/own guns should be severely limited. The Constitution addresses a “well-regulated militia . . .” not individuals.
  

Disagreements:

• Proponents believe that any limitations on the rights of law-abiding individuals (those who would never kill anyone) to bear arms would begin the slide down the proverbial slippery slope and all guns would eventually be taken from them.
• Opponents believe that gun restrictions would save lives.
  

Identify What the Parties Have in Common:

• The need to reduce the number of deaths by gun violence.
• The need to prevent those with mental illnesses from owning firearms.
• The need to ensure those who own firearms are not predisposed to violence and homicide.
• The need to keep firearms out of the hands of violent offenders and minors.
• The need to ensure firearms are safely stored to avoid children from using them.
• The need to secure educational facilities to avoid mass shootings.

Develop Strategies, Tactics, and/or Actions that Build Upon What the Parties Have in Common:

• Strategy: Gun owners should be responsible
• Tactics: Develop actions that allow individuals to own guns responsibly
• Actions:
  • Conduct background checks prior to consummating all purchases (to identify those with mental illness, a propensity to violence and homicide, and violent offenders). This is also known as universal background checks.
  • Institute a reasonable waiting period between purchase and receiving the firearms while backgrounds are being checked.
  • Implement a registration system to more quickly identify perpetrators when violence occurs.
  • Develop safety protocols to ensure minors, particularly, very young children do not have access to firearms.
  • Ensure safety at schools through training, drills, security officials on-site, and periodic checks.

Example: Abortion

Note – even the language chosen is contentious: Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life

The Issue:

• Proponents believe that regardless of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, there should be a federal law protecting a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy with some restrictions (Roe vs. Wade); and that the fetus through the second trimester is not a person, thus women’s rights supersede those of fetuses.
• Opponents believe that fetuses from conception are people and that any pregnancy termination from conception onward is homicide.
  

Disagreements:

• Proponents believe that reasonable limitations on the rights of women to terminate pregnancies would begin the slide down the proverbial slippery slope to banning all abortions.
• Opponents believe that all abortions should be banned.
  

Identify What the Parties Have in Common:

• The need to reduce the number of abortions.
• The need to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
• The need to reduce teen pregnancy.
• The need to increase the number of adoptions of unwanted children.

Develop Strategies, Tactics, and/or Actions that Build Upon What the Parties Have in Common:

• Strategy: Reduce the number of abortions; unwanted pregnancies; and, reduce teen pregnancy.
• Tactics: Develop actions that allow the number of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and teen pregnancies to decline.
• Actions:
  • Ensure junior high and high schools offer an educational curriculum (through health classes or physical education) on how pregnancies occur, giving facts, dispelling myths, and discussing pregnancy prevention.
  • Make birth control available through all health care plans and through affordable, over-the-counter purchases.
  • Update adoption processes – private and governmental – allowing for more timely adoptions.

Your Turn: Medical Intervention for Trans Youth

Ponder how to handle the third contentious issue – medical intervention for Trans Youth – by following the how-to’s. Once done, embrace how it was possible to manage these three very contentious issues based upon vastly differing values and life experiences. Now imagine how this process can work for far less contentious issues in the workplace. 

The suggested process for managing conflicts does work – even with extreme examples of fundamental differences in opinion, driven by very different values.

Imagine how easy this process could work for less contentious workplace disagreements.

The How-To’s – Managing Conflict

• State what the issue is from two basic and divergent (perhaps extreme) perspectives.
• Identify what the parties disagree about.
• Identify what the parties have in common.
• Develop strategies, tactics, and/or actions that build upon what the parties have in common.

To learn more about effective communication during conflict read my book, Consequential Communication in Turbulent Times: A Practical Guide to Leadership.