The sources of conflict need to be explored to effectively look at the conflict from an analytical perspective. Digging beneath the surface of conflict and disputes we start to look at the DNA of conflict.
In this post, we will explore the DNA by reviewing the sources of conflict as a separate entity. When looking at conflict as a separate entity, in and of itself, parties are better able to understand the elements of and the nature of the conflict and then employ the best strategies and practices for managing the conflict and resolving the dispute.
When looking at conflict from an analytical perspective, it is important to define conflict in a way that leaves lots of room for a thorough inquiry to take place. For the purpose of this post, conflict is defined as:
A social situation involving perceived incompatibilities in goals or values between two or more parties, attempts by the parties to control each other, and antagonistic feelings by the parties toward each other. (Fisher, 1990)
In addition, the components of a conflict are ‘incompatible goals or values, attempts to control leading to hostile interactions and antagonistic feelings based in part on misperceptions and misattributions’. (Fisher, 2007) Moreover, the sources of conflict are dimensions of ‘economic, value, power and needs’ (Fisher, 2007) based.
An economic source of conflict, as defined by Fisher (2007), is the behaviours between conflict participants that demonstrate ‘competing motives for scarce resources’ (Fisher, 2007).
This concept assumes that there is a fixed amount or a finite amount of resources available for distribution between conflict participants. An example of this is the conflict we hear about in the news between communities and nations regarding land. Conflict over land, as a scarce resource, stems back through the ages and has been a leading source of war.
As indicated in my LinkedIn Post, ‘A Century of Defining Conflict’, in the timeline of the History of Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution, resources have influenced conflict and war in the last 100 years in the form of wars, revolutions and civil claims.
Resources are usually the first point of contention in any conflict and parties are motivated to engage in and demonstrate their resistance to any proposed change regarding scarce resources.
The next source of conflict, which is value based, is best defined as there being ‘incompatible preferences, principles, ideologies and ways of life’ (Fisher, 2007) that emerge between parties as they develop and engage in discussing their respective perspectives to any proposed change.
A change may be proposing a change of view. As mentioned in my post, ‘How to Focus on the Behaviour and Not the Person During Conflict Management’, conflict emerges in any instance that requires parties to accept and behave in a way that is different from how they would usually behave.
This, in essence, is change.
Power, is the third source of conflict, is defined as being relevant when ‘each party wishes to maximize its influence’ (Fisher, 2007).
An example of demonstrations of parties invoking the power of influence would be when one party decides to either threaten, or call the police during a neighbour dispute about parking.
The disputing neighbour who decides to contact the authorities regarding the other disputing neighbour’s parking practice may believe that he/she would get what he/she wanted if the police became involved.
This is a demonstration of power that is embedded in resistance.
When parties feel or sense resistance, they are more likely to use power as a tool to resolve the conflict or dispute.
Resistance is defined by Karp (1984, p. 69) as ‘the ability to avoid what is not wanted from the environment. It is an expression of power in that not getting what you don’t want is as beneficial as getting what you do want.’ (Karp, 1984)
The demonstration of power in the disputing neighbour contacting the police shows that ‘power is the ability to get all you want from the environment, given what’s available.’ (Karp, 1984).
Needs, as a source of conflict, include the interests of the parties invested in the conflict.
Essentially, they are needs and interests that, for whatever meaning or reason, cannot be reconciled. In this situation, there will always be a sense of one against the other.
From an analytical perspective, irreconcilable can also mean a dimension of a scarcity of resources because we will engage in conflict that may not be available to everybody. Just as the use of power, with the parking example, was used to highlight the disputing neighbour’s demonstration of power, one could also say that before the need to exercise power, the disputing neighbours were engaged in a needs-based conflict over the scarce availability of parking space in their neighbourhood.
Both, in essence, are ‘right’ by their own expression of the conflict, in that they both have the right to feel that their needs and interests are irreconcilable as it relates to parking. What happens between these two disputing neighbours though, is a phenomenon that is brought about when they are engaged in an escalating conflict and dispute.
Fundamental attribution error is a social phenomenon that occurs when individuals view the behaviours of themselves as situational and purposeful in nature and the behaviours of others as a reflection of their moral character and intentional.
With this competing perspective between the interpretation of the behaviours of the self and others, and in consideration of each of the parties’ needs and interests, how can they relate to one another in a way that both parties agree to resolve the dispute?
In a desirable situation, desirable for resolving the dispute, both parties would sit down, engage in dialogue and discuss the underlying, irreconcilable needs and interests. These underlying needs and interests are the reasons why the position a person takes is so important to him/her and are best defined as his/her CHEAP BFVs:
Once the needs and interests are surfaced, it is easier to find a solution that best meets the needs and interests of both parties, to the greatest possible degree, creating a situation where the needs and interests become reconcilable.
The relationship between conflict management and dispute resolution and conflict analysis is as necessary as the relationship between gasoline and a vehicle. In order to effectively understand conflict, it is important to know what fuels conflict. The relationships between all of the elements need to be explored to provide a thorough assessment of the conflict situation. Once the conflict situation is fully understood, from all angles and perspectives, parties are more equipped to employ solutions that will be appropriate and sustainable.
Thank you for reading my post.
Until next time,
If mastering the science of conflict management is a goal you have for yourself in 2018, complete your FREE professional conflict management assessment to learn how to pro-manage conflict at work. Knowing your style is an important first step to working through conflict situations and finding solutions. Backed with testing in 16+ years of training events, our assessment is designed to provide you with options to prepare for your next journey into a difficult conversation. Get your personalized Conflict Management Assessment at Peak Conflict Solutions.
Fisher, R. (1977, Rev. 1985, 2000). Sources of conflict and methods of conflict resolution. International Peace and Conflict Resolution School of International Service, The American University.
Fisher, R.J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fisher, R.J. (2007). Social-psychological processes in interactive conflict analysis and reconciliation, in M. Abu-Nimer (Ed.). Reconciliation, justice and coexistence: Theory and practice, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
(2018). Juliamenard.com. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from http://www.juliamenard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CHEAPBFVs.pdf
Karp, H. B. (1984). Working with resistance. Training & Development Journal, 38(3), 69-73, Mar 1984.
Living life to its fullest. Building mighty communities through connection, belonging, security, and love. I am founder and CEO at Peak Conflict Solutions and my purpose in life is to show your workplace how to set the tone for connection, belonging, and security while creating space for conflict management.