The major difference, for example, between constructive controversy and competitive debate, is that in the former, people discuss their differences with the objective of clarifying them and attempting to find a solution that integrates the best thoughts that emerge during the discussion, no matter who articulates them (see chapter 4 for a fuller discussion). There is no winner and no loser; both win if, during the controversy, each party comes to deeper insights and enriched views of the matter that is initially in controversy. Constructive controversy is a process for constructively coping with the inevitable differences that people bring to cooperative interaction because it uses differences in understanding, perspective, knowledge, and worldview as valued resources. By contrast, in competitive contests or debates, there is usually a winner and a loser. The party judged to have “the best”—ideas, skills, knowledge, and so on—typically wins, while the other, who is judged to be less good, typically loses. Competition evaluates and ranks people based on their capacity for a particular task rather than integrating various contributions.
By my emphasis throughout this chapter, I do not mean to suggest that competition produces no benefits. Competition is part of everyday life. Acquiring the skills necessary to compete effectively can be of considerable value. Moreover, competition in a cooperative, playful context can be fun. It enables one to enact and experience, in a nonserious setting, symbolic emotional dramas relating to victory and defeat, life and death, power and helplessness, dominance and submission—dramas that have deep personal and cultural roots. In addition, competition is a useful social mechanism for selecting those who are better able to perform the activities involved in the competition. Furthermore, when no objective, criterion-referenced basis for measurement of performance exists, the relative performance of students affords a crude yardstick. Nevertheless, serious problems are associated with competition when it does not occur in a cooperative context and if it is not effectively regulated by fair rules. (See Deutsch, 1973, pp. 377–388, for a discussion of regulating competition.)
Fair competition is an essential ingredient of a democratic governance process as well as of an effective free market economic system. In elections (e.g., if the rules and procedures make it more difficult for those who favor one party or candidate rather than the other to vote or have their vote counted), this undermines a democratic governance process. Similarly, if bribery or political influence allows one company or industry to avoid following regulations that others are required to implement, economic efficiency and the free market are undermined.
PATHOLOGIES OF COOPERATION
As I have indicated in my writings on cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b, 1973), there is a natural tendency for cooperation to break down as a result of the very social psychological processes—substitutability, attitudes (cathexis), and inducibility—that are central to cooperation. Thus, substitutability, which enables the work of one cooperator to replace the work of another so that they don’t have to duplicate one another’s efforts, leads to specialization of function. Specialization of function in turn gives rise to specialized interests and specialized terminology and language; the likely consequence is a deterioration of group unity as those with special interests compete for scarce resources and communicate in a language that is not fully shared. Similarly, cathexis of other group members (the development of personal bonds between members) can lead to in-group favoritism, clique formation, nepotism, and so on. Here, the consequences are likely to be a weakening of overall group cohesion as cliques develop, a deterioration of cooperation with other groups as in-group favoritism grows, and a lessening of group effectiveness as a result of nepotism. Inducibility, the readiness to be influenced positively by other group members, can lead to excessive conformity with the views of others so that one no longer makes one’s own independent, unique contribution to the group. The cooperative process, as a result, may be deprived of the creative contributions that can be made by each of its members; also, those who suppress their individuality may feel inwardly alienated from themselves and their group despite their outer conformity. In addition, free riding or social loafing may occur in which some members shirk their responsibilities to the group and seek to obtain the benefits of group membership without offering the contributions they are able to make to it.
Among the procedures that are employed to prevent the impairment of cooperation are these:
Rotation among positions and job enlargement to retard the development of specialized interests
Fostering communication among individuals and groups with different interests to facilitate perception of common interests
Educating and indoctrinating members so that they become group oriented
Developing group symbols, rituals, and occasions to foster group unity and personal identification with the group
Instituting coordinating and translating mechanisms, as well as cross-cutting memberships in specialized subgroups
Honoring and cherishing individuality and buttressing the right to differ
Maintaining sufficient individual accountability so that shirking can be detected and responded to with appropriate diagnostic and intervention procedures
Engaging in periodic, independent reviews of the way the cooperative system is functioning and making the necessary repairs
The effort in maintaining effective cooperative systems and repairing them when required is considerable. When cooperation is not required and individual action is feasible, the costs of cooperation may outweigh its benefits and make the individual action preferable. However, often individual action is insufficient and cooperation is necessary. In such cases, the effort required to develop and maintain an effective cooperative process may be the only sensible alternative to the dismal consequences of failure to do so.
INITIATING COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
If we know that cooperative and competitive processes have important effects on conflict resolution, a question follows: What initiates or gives rise to one or the other process? I did much research (Deutsch, 1973) in an attempt to find the answer. The results of my many studies fell into a pattern I slowly began to grasp. They seemed explainable by an assumption I have immodestly labeled “Deutsch’s Crude Law of Social Relations”:
The characteristic processes and effects elicited by a given type of social relationship also tend to elicit that type of social relationship, and a typical effect tends to induce the other typical effects of that relationship.
Thus, cooperation induces and is induced by perceived similarity in beliefs and attitudes, readiness to be helpful, openness in communication, trusting and friendly attitudes, sensitivity to common interests and deemphasis of opposed interests, orientation toward enhancing mutual power rather than power differences, and so on. Similarly, competition induces and is induced by the use of the tactics of coercion, threat, or deception; attempts to enhance the power differences between oneself and the other; poor communication; minimization of the awareness of similarities in values and increased sensitivity to opposed interests; suspicious and hostile attitudes; the importance, rigidity, and size of issues in conflict; and so on.
In other words, someone who has systematic knowledge of the effects of cooperative and competitive processes has systematic knowledge of the conditions that typically give rise to such processes and, by extension, the conditions that affect whether a conflict takes a constructive or destructive course. My early theory of cooperation and competition is a theory of the effects of cooperative and competitive processes. Hence, from the Crude Law of Social Relations, it follows that this theory brings insight into the conditions that give rise to cooperative and competitive processes.
This law is certainly crude. It expresses surface similarities between effects and causes; the basic relationships are genotypical rather than phenotypical. The surface effects of cooperation and competition are due to the underlying type of interdependence (positive or negative) and type of action (effective or bungling), th
e basic social psychological processes involved in the theory (substitutability, attitudes, and inducibility), and the cultural or social medium and situational context in which these processes are expressed. Thus, how a positive attitude is expressed in an effective, positively interdependent relationship depends on what is appropriate to the cultural or social medium and situational context; that is, presumably one would not seek to express it in a way that is humiliating or embarrassing or likely to be experienced negatively by one’s partner.
Similarly, the effectiveness of any typical effect of cooperation or competition as an initiating or inducing condition of a cooperative or competitive process is not due to its phenotype but rather to the inferred genotype of the type of interdependence and type of action. Thus, in most social media and social contexts, perceived similarity in basic values is highly suggestive of the possibility of a positive linkage between oneself and the other. However, we are likely to see ourselves as negatively linked in a context that leads each of us to recognize that similarities in values impel seeking something that is in scarce supply and available for only one of us. Also, it is evident that although threats are mostly perceived in a way that suggests a negative linkage, any threat perceived as intended to compel you to do something that is good for you or that you feel you should do is likely to be suggestive of a positive linkage.
Although the law is crude, my impression is that it is reasonably accurate; phenotypes often indicate the underlying genotypes. Moreover, it is a synthesizing principle, which integrates and summarizes a wide range of social psychological phenomena. The typical effects of a given relationship tend to induce that relationship; similarly, it seems that any of the typical effects of a given relationship tend to induce the other typical effects. For example, among the typical effects of a cooperative relationship are positive attitudes, perception of similarities, open communication, and orientation toward mutual enhancement. One can integrate much of the literature on the determinants of positive and negative attitudes in terms of the other associated effects of cooperation and competition. Thus, positive attitudes result from perceptions of similarity, open communication, and so on. Similarly, many of the determinants of effective communication can be linked to the other typical effects of cooperation or competition, such as positive attitudes and power sharing.
SUMMARY OF THE THEORY OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION
In brief, the theory equates a constructive process of conflict resolution with an effective cooperative problem-solving process in which the conflict is the mutual problem to be resolved cooperatively. It also equates a destructive process of conflict resolution with a competitive process in which the conflicting parties are involved in a competition or struggle to determine who wins and who loses; often the outcome of the struggle is a loss for both parties. The theory further indicates that a cooperative-constructive process of conflict resolution is fostered by the typical effects of cooperation. The theory of cooperation and competition outlined thus far in the chapter is a well-verified theory of the effects of cooperation and competition and thus allows insight into what can give rise to a constructive or destructive process.
The theory cannot serve as a cookbook for a practitioner in the field of conflict resolution. It is a general intellectual framework for understanding what goes on in conflicts and how to intervene in them. In addition, understanding and intervening in a specific conflict requires specific knowledge about the conflicting parties, their social and cultural contexts, their aspirations, their conflict orientations, the social norms, and so on.
Cooperation-competition, although of central importance, is only one factor influencing the course of conflict. The other chapters in this Handbook detail some of the other ingredients affecting conflict: power and influence, group problem solving, social perception and cognition, creativity, intrapsychic conflict, and personality. A practitioner must develop a mosaic of theories relevant to the specific situation of interest rather than relying on any single one. The symptoms or difficulties in one situation may require emphasis on the theoretical theme related to power; in another, it may require focusing on problem-solving deficiencies.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY FOR UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT
Kurt Lewin, a famous psychologist, used to tell his students, of whom I was one, that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.” To this point, I have presented the basic ideas of a good theory; in what follows, I indicate their usefulness in conflict situations.
The Importance of a Cooperative Orientation
The most important implication of cooperation-competition theory is that a cooperative or win-win orientation to resolving a conflict enormously facilitates constructive resolution, while a competitive or win-lose orientation hinders it. It is easier to develop and maintain a win-win attitude if you have social support for it. The social support can come from family, friends, coworkers, employers, the media, your community, and the culture in which you are embedded.
To have a win-win attitude in a hostile environment, it is valuable to become part of a network of people or a member of groups with similar orientations that can extend social support to you. It is also helpful to develop the personal strengths and skills that are useful in bucking the tide.
If you are the manager in a system (e.g., a principal in a school, a CEO in a company, a parent in a family), it is worthwhile to recognize that basic change in the system involves more than educating students, employees, or children to have a win-win orientation. It also involves educating yourself and other key people in the system, such as supervisors, staff, teachers, and parents, so that their actions reflect and support a win-win orientation. In addition, it often requires fundamental change in the incentive structure so that the rewards, salaries, grades, perks, and so on in the system do not foster a win-lose relationship among the people in it.
Reframing
The second most important implication of the theory has to do with the cooperative process that is involved in constructive conflict resolution. At the heart of this process is reframing the conflict as a mutual problem to be resolved (or solved) through joint cooperative efforts. Reframing helps to develop a cooperative orientation to the conflict even if the goals of the conflicting parties are initially seen to be negatively interdependent. A cooperative orientation to what is initially a win-lose conflict leads the parties to search for just procedures to determine who the winner is, as well as for helping the loser gain through compensation or other means. Reframing has inherent within it the assumption that whatever resolution is achieved, it is acceptable to each party and considered to be just by both. This assumption is made explicit when one or both parties to a conflict communicate to the other something like, “I won’t be satisfied with any agreement unless you also feel satisfied with it and consider it to be just, and I assume that you feel the same way. Is my assumption correct?”
Thus, consider a school that is developing site-based management (SBM) procedures but faces a conflict (the second opening vignette of the Introduction to this Handbook). One group of teachers, mainly white, insists on having teachers elected to the SBM executive committee from the various academic departments by majority vote. Another group of teachers, the Black Teachers Caucus (BTC), demands that several members of the committee be from minority groups to represent their interests. This conflict can be reformulated as a joint problem: how to develop SBM procedures that empower and are responsive to the interests and needs of faculty, parents, and students from minority groups without abandoning the regular democratic procedures whereby teachers are elected to the SBM committee by their respective departments.
This joint problem is not easy to solve, but many organizations have faced and resolved similar problems. There is reason to believe that if the conflicting groups—the SBM committee members elected by their departments and the BTC—define the conflict as a joint problem to be resolved cooperatively, they can come up with a solution that is mutually satisfactory. (See chapter 2 for
a discussion of resolving conflicts about what is just.)
The Norms of Cooperation
Of course, the parties are more likely to succeed in reframing their conflict into a mutual problem if the participants abide by the norms of cooperative behavior, even when in conflict, and have the skills that facilitate effective cooperation. The norms of cooperative behavior basically are similar to those for respectful, responsible, honest, empowering, and caring behavior toward friends or fellow group members. Some of these norms, particularly relevant to conflict, are the following:
Placing the disagreements in perspective by identifying common ground and common interests.
When there is disagreement, addressing the issues and refraining from making personal attacks.
When there is disagreement, seeking to understand the other’s views from his or her perspective; trying to feel what it would be like if you were on the other’s side.
Building on the ideas of the other, fully acknowledging their value.
Emphasizing the positive in the other and the possibilities of constructive resolution of the conflict. Limiting and controlling expression of your negative feelings so that they are primarily directed at the other’s violation of cooperative norms (if that occurs) or at the other’s defeatism.
Taking responsibility for the harmful consequences—unwitting as well as intended—of what you do and say; seeking to undo the harm as well as openly accepting responsibility and making sincere apology for it.
If the other harms you, be willing to forgive if the other accepts responsibility for doing so, sincerely apologizes, and is willing to try to undo it; seeking reconciliation rather than nurturing an injury or grudge.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 7