Communication and Conflict Resolution

Effective communication can be the key to resolving conflict while ineffective communication often may be the cause of and exacerbate conflict.  This was a comment made in a paper presented by (Schwartz, Howard, Szeto, Mary Ping, Stewart, Carol, 1999) in a workshop for the Nonprofit Coordinating committee of New York. Factors recognized as affecting communication were conscious or unconscious “screens”. This can include values, perceptions, assumptions, body language, facial expressions, emotional status, and physical appearances, past personal experiences, stereotypes, cultural differences, nationality, race and gender, one’s use of the English language, and positioning and power.

Five broad styles of dealing with conflict are identified to include1) the accommodating style which entails giving in maybe because the relationship is more important than the conflict. 2) The competing style which involves win/lose scenario where one person gets what he wants at the expense of another. 3) The avoiding style where the conflict is not addressed at all. 4) The compromising style where one party meets the other half way usually giving up something in order to get something and 5) the collaborating style where the parties equally value their relationship and each others needs.

Five tools to have the acquired information move towards resolution of the dispute include Brainstorming, which allows the gathering of information and generates creative options for resolving the dispute. Brainstorming removes the emotions of the past and allows parties to focus on the future calcating respect and providing clarity. The next tool is to separate people from the problem. Most times we associate or inter mingle people with the problem. Another tool entails negotiating on interests as opposed to positions. Positions are concrete, specific and inflexible statements that appear to provide a solution. Interests on the other hand are a person’s needs, wants and concerns. Interests are the underlying issues that generate positions. It is suggested that negotiating around positions narrowly limits the options. (Schwartz et all, 1999)

It is apparent that the above methodology in fact affirms the Biblical perspective of conflict resolution.   In the book Guiding People through conflict (Sande, Ken, and Kober, 1998, Peace Makers Ministries) similar methods are identified in a slippery slope which reflects how people respond to conflict.

The three responses are identified as:

1.  Escape response: This includes denial which entails pretending that no conflict exists, flight- running away from the conflict by ending a friendship, divorce, quitting a job or leaving a church and suicide which may occur when people lose hope of conflict being resolved and seek to escape by taking their own life.
2. Attack response: Used by people interested in winning a conflict than preserving the relationship. It can manifest in the form of assault which could involve verbal attacks (including gossip and slander) and physical violence. This response tends to escalate the conflict. The other form of this response is seeking litigation without attempting to resolve the dispute and murder which can take the form of actual physical murder or harboring hate against the other person.  
3. Conciliation response:this is the biblical perspective of resolving dispute and includes overlooking an offense if it will serve the better good, Proverbs 19:11 (New King James Version) and is a form of forgiveness. Another alternative is reconciliation if the offence cannot be overlooked. This entails resolving personal or relational issues through confession, loving correction and forgiveness, Mathew 5:23-24. The other form is negotiation involving cooperative bargaining process in which you and the other person seek to reach a settlement that satisfies the legitimate needs of each side, Philippians 2:4. Mediation is the other form which happens when two people, cannot agree and a third party is appointed to mediate, Mathew 18:16. Arbitration is used when no agreement is reached on a dispute involving material aspect, 1 Corinthian 6:4.The last approach of the conciliation response is causing Accountability, which occurs when one person refuses to be reconciled and do what is right, the church leaders may intervene to hold that person accountable, Mathew 18:17. (Sande &Kober 1998)

Conflicts can escalate negatively affecting entire families, neighborhoods, and organization if not confronted early or effectively. (Moore, Ronnie, 2007). Five tips of ensuring that conflict is handled and resolved properly include distinguishing between true conflicts and false conflict. False conflicts are differences that do not have to be resolved. Moore suggests learning to choose your battles and refusing to engage in unnecessary arguments and debates. The second tip suggests that if you decide what you are dealing with is a true conflict, there is need to communicate. This will entail confrontation, because true conflict cannot be avoided.  He notes that most people fail to confront because they confuse it with fighting, anger, and unpleasantness. Properly defined confrontation means to face an issue instead of avoiding it.

 The third suggestion is to get back your objectivity before you communicate. There are two parts to an issue: The issue and the person attached to the issue. You regain objectivity by identifying and noting the positive attributes and competences of the person. This will give you a more balanced view which will help in communicating the issues.  The fourth tip is to start communication on a foundation of sameness. This means that instead of starting with the conflict and why you are angry, start with something that you agree on or something you share. If you start communicating with a negative, you may cause the other person to immediately get defensive and leave no positive or productive place for the communication to go. The last suggestion is to “beat up” issues not the people attached to the issues. This means you attack behaviour not the person. If you attack the person, they are either going to attack back or retreat out of real or perceived lack of power. The problem with attacking a person is that real issues don’t get resolved because the person attacked cannot hear; neither do they focus on changing their behaviour. (More, R. 2007)