top of page
Search

Conflict Management Portfolio

Updated: Dec 2, 2019

Introduction

You see it everywhere. When you shop at the store; when you drive to work, when you gather the family together for a meal. It is on our televisions, our Facebook feeds, in the books we read. It is even in our minds. In fact, that is where it all begins. Conflict, the number one killer of all the histories of humanity. Communication scholars, Joyce Hocker and William Wilmot, define conflict as “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference between one another in achieving their goals.” It can breed division and hate and war, but it can also allow living organisms to thrive. For without conflict, we might as well just hand over our belongings and lay down to die. Without conflict, we allow oppression and inequality to triumph over justice. Our planet may be so big that seven-billion human beings can fit shoulder-to-shoulder in the state of Rhode Island, and we may produce enough food in the world to feed ten-billion people. Yet, we do not have access to every place, item, and skill we need to further our lives; nor the lives of our loved ones. It all begins with a belief, and our disagreement towards others’ beliefs. Each of us are so wildly unique from each other, we simply cannot be expected to agree on everything that others hold true to themselves. Neither can we expect them to agree with us. Yet, We have to interact with one another, and mingle our beliefs, goals, and resources. My name is Bleauregard (Blu) von Kasadu, and I am here to explore the question: how do we manage conflict? First, I will explain how this topic relates to my own life. I will then use scientific articles published within the last ten years to peruse the concept. Along this literary journey, I will also visit four speakers that have faced conflict, and developed skills to manage it in their own unique way. In conclusion to this portfolio, I will leave you with four questions to discuss.


Personal Conflicts

Growing up, I saw many examples of conflict rather poorly conducted. People often became upset, using aggressive body language to take up space, baring their teeth, widening their eyes, talking louder and faster than their opponents; just as a threatened primate reacts. If the conversation did not devolve into a yelling match, then my family left their concerns in a note, or avoided conflict entirely. I saw conflict being sensationalized on the news, soap operas, action movies, or wrestling. My cartoons even had characters, solving their problems with each other in all the wrong ways. Conflict has been engrained into my life history like a dry rub on smoked meats. It has saturated practically every pore in my body so deeply that my bones shiver. I have endured abuse and neglect; lost family; experienced physical and verbal fights; was threatened with a gun twice; and generally witnessed the wrongful judgments of others.


When I was twenty-years-old, I started a movement called “The One Love Project”. Practically overnight, I had amassed fifty-two people for the purpose of spreading love and enlightenment through festival events. Why? To solve conflict, and struggle, and pain. I was reported to the authorities for my efforts. My girlfriend at the time knew someone’s mom, who worked for the FBI. We were told to be careful what we were saying to the public, because we were being monitored as a possible security risk. When I was probably twenty-three-years-old, I handed a mental health specialist a nine-page letter, detailing several social, economic, and environmental conflicts that kept me awake at night. That same month, I became aware of a software application linked to my email that was being used by the CIA to track me. I must not have been that much of a threat, since no one within those agencies ever confronted me; and, well...I am still here.


When I have introduced an idea that conflicts with someone else’s, they can usually shrug it off and dismiss it without too much trouble. There are a surprising number of people in the world, however, that experience a state of being where they feel extremely fearful over intangible concepts and perspectives. They react as though their lives are legitimately in danger, simply because what I have said conflicts with what they believe. This phenomenon is called “cognitive dissonance”, and it is the bain of our social reality. Our loved ones can even become so convinced of what they believe, that they may be willing to fight us for it. In such a case, there is no admitting or apologizing for being wrong. It is war. Trying to reason with them could be like talking to a brick wall, or poking a bear. How do we bridge this gap, and break down barriers without sabotaging our relationships? How can we stand our ground without causing real harm?


Journal Summaries

Overton, A., & Lowry, A. (2013). Conflict Management: Difficult Conversations with Difficult People. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 26(04), 259-264. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1356728

In this research paper, researchers explore the implications of conflict management in the healthcare industry. Data on the detrimental effects of conflict in the workplace are discussed, including employee satisfaction, monetary costs, and interpersonal communication errors. Conflict is clearly defined. We are offered various ways to manage conflict, such as the five styles and the VALUED conflict model.


The research paper mentions that in a survey of 5,000 full-time employees in nine different countries, 85% of healthcare employees faced conflict in the workplace to some degree. 29% experienced conflict “frequently or always”. In another survey, 64% of respondents reported that they had experienced a toxic personality in their current work environment, while 94% worked with a toxic personality at some point in their career. 91% of nurses surveyed reportedly experienced verbal abuse. It is interesting to hear of a work environment that focuses on health, with conflict running so rampant. One would think that in one of the most important locations for stress-free zones, there would be a tighter hold on the situation. Health care is a complicated subject that requires collaboration and cooperation between all members involved. Unfortunately, the expense of lost work time due to conflict situations in the United States amounted to $359-billion in 2008. If conflict is so bad in an industry, where stress can mean the difference between life and death, what does that say about other industries in the United States?


Teaching conflict management in the work place seems to work, though. One group mentioned in this research paper reported a 10% improvement in confronting difficult issues, when they were taught communication skills. Customer and employee satisfaction, productivity, and overall quality also improved. An information technology group saw improvements in quality by 30%, productivity by 40%, and a decrease in costs by almost 50% by taking similar steps. One study mentioned that “training does not reduce the occurrence of conflict, but it clearly has an impact on how conflict is perceived and can mitigate the negative outcomes associated with conflict.”


The research paper mentions that there are five different methods- or “styles”- we can use to handle conflict; Avoidance, Accommodation, Competition, Compromise, and Collaboration. Avoidance is when we choose to avoid the conflict by giving into the motivations of another, such as allowing another to follow through with their goals without interference. It may be effective towards minor issues, as a temporary response when emotions are tense, or when others can resolve the problem more efficiently than oneself. Accommodation deals with making it easier for another to fulfill their motivations, in an attempt to ensure conflict is resolved. It may be effective when one is wrong, if the issue is more critical to others than oneself, or if the value of harmony outweighs the benefit of conflict. Competition involves investing effort into convincing another that one’s own motivations or beliefs are more important than theirs. It may be effective in emergent situations, or if the actions of others are unpopular and need to be taken on as an important issue. Compromise takes place when two or more parties look for ways to accommodate each other’s motivations, while satisfying their own. Collaboration happens when the parties in question seek to act upon the same motivations and end result. Compromise and collaboration seem to compliment each other, with assertiveness and cooperation being key points. The difference being that compromise is resource-limited, and collaboration takes into account a broader view of meeting all the parties’ needs. They are defined as problem-solving responses, characterized by open-mindedness. These responses promote positive outcomes for all.


Various models were proposed in the research to teach conflict management skills, with six underlying principles shared between them; (1) Conflict is inevitable. Both positive and negative consequences may occur as a result of how it is managed; (2) Results of conflict are likely to be better with active engagement, rather than avoidance; (3) The parties involved must be motivated to address the conflict they are involved in; (4) Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral skills regarding conflict can be learned; (5) Emotional skills regarding conflict requires self-awareness; and (6) The environment housing conflict must feel neutral and safe between all parties involved. A conflict model known by the acronym “VALUED” was provided as a means to help facilitate this level of problem-solving. It stands for “[V]alidate, [A]sk (open-ended questions), [L]isten (to test assumptions), [U]ncover interests, [E]xplore options, and [D]ecide (on solutions).”


Fernando, A. B., Urcelay, G. P., Mar, A. C., Dickinson, A., & Robbins, T. W. (2014). Safety signals as instrumental reinforcers during free-operant avoidance. Learning & Memory, 21(9), 488-497. doi:10.1101/lm.034603.114

Dr. Fernando and his team explored the avoidance behavior in mice, and how it relates to aversive stimuli. They set up a series of four experiments to determine whether or not conditioned avoidance was goal-oriented or habitual. Two levers were presented, which must be pressed for the mice to avoid being shocked of electricity after a certain amount of time. In the first experiment, one lever produced a “safety” signal, while the other produced nothing. The mice preferred the lever that produced the signal, for it cued a longer interval without being shocked. In the second experiment, only one lever was presented, and it produced no signal. However, the mice pulled the lever more often than in the first experiment. The third experiment reintroduced the safety signal with one lever, as well as morphine and amphetamines. Mice were subjected to these drugs in a separate session, preceding the test. Then they were presented with a drug-free test. Mice from the drug session reported more lever pulls during the test than those that had not been subjected to drugs, with significant increases for mice that were sober from morphine. In the fourth experiment, there was a period where the safety signal was accessed through lever-pulling. The mice had pulled the lever significantly more when it resulted in the safety signal.


What this study shows is that avoidance behavior is not only associated with anticipated pain, but that it is habituated by association in a manner similar to Pavlov’s dogs. The mice wanted to avoid being shocked in their feet, so to pull the lever kept them from feeling the pain for a certain amount of time. They found greater association with the safety signal, much like Pavlov’s dogs associated the bell with feeding time. Using morphine demonstrated that this association involves a fear-response to pain. The mice that were subjected to morphine pulled the lever more often than those that had not been subjected to the drug, indicating that the avoidance response is associated with the desire to avoid pain. When we come off of opiates, we have a lower tolerance to pain. We react to social situations in a similar way. Certain associations we have made throughout our lives govern how we approach situations, such as in the case of conflict. It may resemble scenarios in our lives that have caused physical, emotional, or psychological pain, and so we seek to avoid relatable conflict. Since it is a learned behavior, it can be unlearned through classical conditioning. We may be able to reverse these avoidance behaviors by placing ourselves in a controlled environment similar to the conflict we seek to avoid, and building new associations with those scenarios. A desirable sound can be established, which we can play at key points of activities we find enjoyable. Then during the controlled conflict scenario, the same sound can be played at times we would normally anticipate pain.


Piezunka, H., Lee, W., Haynes, R., & Bothner, M. S. (2018). Escalation of competition into conflict in competitive networks of Formula One drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(15). doi:10.1073/pnas.1717303115

This study explores the factors that lead competition into dangerous conflict. It had been theorized that these escalations occur in people of similar social structures (i.e. mannerisms, status, style, language). Using data on Formula One races between 1970 – 2014, researchers observe the probability that racers will collide on the track. Researchers found empirical evidence to support the theory. They established that this competition was not driven by a desire for position and status, nor was it a product of inherently hostile parties involved.


It is significant to discover that competition does not have to be born out of a need to win. The common view is that this is why we compete in the first place. We want to achieve, to be in a place of high status, and to have the satisfaction of knowing we are capable. This study introduces the claim that this is not always the case. Competition can be the product of two similar personalities in the same social structure, causing friction. Researchers use the term “structural equivalence”, which refers to the extent at which two nodes connect to the same third-party node. For instance, two racers in the same social group. In the case of competition, it can be similar to two magnets with the same polarity, trying to occupy a similar space. They may try to push each other out, simply because the social group only has room for one of their particular personalities. The same could be said about our relationships. We need to be careful how closely we relate to someone, or else we will find ourselves competing against them for a spot in our households, families, or inner circles. This may contribute to the reason people of opposite styles are drawn to each other.


Bernstein, E., Shore, J., & Lazer, D. (2018). How intermittent breaks in interaction improve collective intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(35), 8734-8739. doi:10.1073/pnas.1802407115

Researchers in the past have investigated how social influence can affect a team’s ability to solve problems, but not on how time spent together can influence their effectiveness. In this study, Dr. Bernstein and his team explore whether constant social influence, intermittent social influence, or no influence are more efficient for the purpose of collaboration. People broken up into these three test groups were asked to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). The intermittent social influence group solved the problem frequently, while having a high level of independent exploration. These solutions were discovered most on sessions with social influence, after periods of separation.


This study is a great example of how collective consciousness can be applied. Separately, we experience problems in our lives that we must solve for ourselves. Those solutions are then committed to our minds, which we can pull from long-term memory to inspire solutions of our present situation. When we come together as a group to solve a problem, we will have these angles to contribute to the discussion that others do not possess. If we are among a group of people for too long, we lose the sense that we possess original ideas. Instead, we are all sharing in the experience of the problems we face. This may be applied to the conflict in our relationships. We may find that our ability to collaborate on solutions to conflict is inhibited by the amount of time we spend together. By granting ourselves adequate space from the other party, the probability that we will face challenges that others do not improves. That way, when we do come back together to compromise or collaborate on conflict we experience in our relationships, we can bring certain angles of perspective than the other might not have had access to at the time.


Another aspect of this study that is shown involves how an individual becomes unique in the first place. Our varied responses to the experiences we face on our own allow us to grow in our own way. Due to what we have been through individually, we each have access to different sets of information, memories, skills, and insights. In groups, we tend to conform to a unified thought and behavioral pattern with constant influence, resulting in a narrower frame of thinking. This is likely why the results of the study mentions the test group with constant social influence having more trouble finding optimum solutions than the other groups. This is significant in the case of conflict, since too much time together can influence us to conform to each others’ positive and negative habits. For instance, an individual who is naturally an aggressive person may influence a team towards an aggressive communication climate, which could set off a chain-reaction of influence. On the other hand, a naturally assertive, cooperative individual may influence others to collaborate more often.


Media

The following video clips are prepared to further illustrate effective means of handling conflict.


On Being Wrong by Kathryn Schulz

“Wrongologist” and New York Times staff member, Kathryn Schulz, presents the case that admitting to being wrong can totally be right. This Ted Talk was originally presented at a TED conference in March of 2011, and the video is 17:52 in length.


Fighting with Non-Violence by Scilla Elworthy

Peace activist and founder of Oxford Research Group, Scilia Elsworthy, courageously explores how to solve conflict through nonviolent means. This Ted Talk was originally presented at a TEDxExeter conference in April of 2012, and the video is 15:47 in length.


Dare to Disagree by Margaret Heffernan

Former CEO of five businesses, Margaret Hefferman, shares her argument that conflict is beneficial when disagreement is essential. This TED Talk was originally presented at a TEDGlobal conference in June of 2012, and was featured by editors on the TED.com homepage. The video is 12:56 in length.


In Praise of Conflict by Jonathan Marks

Lawyer and bioethicist, Jonathon Marks, discusses the importance of instigating conflict as it relates to governments sacrificing public health, human rights, and the environment by working with industry. This TED Talk was originally presented at a TEDxPSU conference in February of 2017, and the video is 14:57 in length.


Class Questions

Here are some questions to generate discussion for yourself, and for those around you.


1. What emotions made you avoid conflict most recently, and what happened in your past that might have inspired these feelings?


2. How often and why do conflicts happen in your professional life?


3. Do you find yourself in more or less conflicts with those you relate most to? Why or why not?


4. Is it easier for you to solve conflicts with people you are around constantly, intermittently, or those you have just met? Why?

Comments

bottom of page