The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  A further implication related to outcomes necessary for resolution is that mechanisms and procedures for dealing with differences assertively and cooperatively must be built into decision making and policymaking. If all parties concerned with a situation of conflict are involved in a meaningful fashion and if procedures that work to achieve consensus (not unanimity) are implemented, the chances of incompatibilities escalating into destructive conflict are markedly reduced. This assertion is built on humanistic and democratic values, which of course are not in play in many institutions, cultures, and societies, and that is why conflict resolution must be seen as part of the slow march of civilization toward a participative and egalitarian world. Each social unit (organization, institution, community, society) has choices to make regarding the benefits and costs of social control (oppression in the extreme) versus the benefits and ultimately reduced costs of moving in democratic directions.

  Thus, at the far end of conflict resolution, it is implied that institutions and societies must create political and economic structures that support equality and equity among different groups as well as individuals. (Refer to the discussion of the values and norms underlying constructive conflict resolution in chapter 1.) At the societal level, democratic pluralism and multiculturalism are policies that will reduce destructive intergroup conflict. Depending on the geographical distribution of groups, political arrangements involving power sharing or federalism are congruent with a conflict resolution approach. Recognition of and respect among distinct identity groups in cultural and political terms need to go hand in hand with equality of opportunities in economic terms. Conflict resolution thus does not imply assimilation or homogenization, although members of distinct identity groups may share a political or national identity as well, but it does imply a mosaic of integrated social groups, cooperating in an interdependent fashion for mutual benefit.

  IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING

  The preceding implications cry out for new roles, innovative practices, and transformed policies and institutions to creatively deal with differences among diverse groups. Whether one is a member or representative of a group in conflict, or a third party charged with facilitating conflict resolution, the challenge in terms of the qualities and skills required is daunting. At the same time, there is now a welcome proliferation of education and training opportunities at all levels (elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, undergraduate and graduate programs, professional development workshops) in relevant areas such as interpersonal communication, problem solving, consensus building, and conflict management. The question to be addressed here is, What are the basic skills required to build on the understanding just outlined in order to operationalize conflict resolution processes? Only a rudimentary answer will be given because of space limitations, but I hope it will be a useful starting point. These comments share some points Deutsch has already made in chapters 1 and 2 on the skills required for maintaining a cooperative conflict resolution process and a productive group problem-solving process.

  The list of analytical and especially behavioral skills to enact the facilitation role in resolving intergroup conflict is a long one indeed and is drawn from multiple areas of professional practice, including human relations training, counseling, cross-cultural communication, community development, organizational consulting, intergroup relations, and international diplomacy. No one intervenor can aspire to develop the full skill set required to facilitate productive confrontation at the intergroup level, and it is therefore assumed that such work will involve teams of professionals, often from different but complementary disciplines relevant to the particular context of the conflict, for example, organizational, urban community, or international region. Teams are also required since it is common at certain points to work with the groups separately as well as at the interface of their relationship.

  Analytical Skills

  Analytical skills from many domains of understanding are useful, but at the core of this practice is the ability to apply knowledge about social conflict—its causes, forms of expression, processes of escalation, and mechanisms for its deescalation, management, and resolution. The task of the intervenor is to offer theoretical interpretations and insights at apparently useful points. Often these inputs illuminate the functioning of groups in conflict, such as normative pressures toward aggressive actions, or dynamics of the interface between the groups, such as the typical manner in which majorities and minorities relate to each other. Further understanding of the context and the cultures in which the intergroup conflict is occurring is essential, whether one is working in an urban American community, a human service organization, or a particular region of the globe. In this regard, facilitators who are from the context and culture in question, and even from the parties in conflict, can play an especially illuminating role if they are able to rise above their in-group identity and biases and their preconceived notions related to the conflict and its resolution.

  Personal Qualities

  At the personal level, intervenors require many of the qualities and skills of any other professional, reflective practitioner, such as integrity and detachment. Considerable self-confidence and assuredness (although not overly so) are necessary to move into the cauldron of intergroup conflict. A high level of self-awareness is essential in terms of how one is affected by the behaviors of others, such as criticism or attack, and how one’s own behavior is usually perceived by and affects others. One needs the capacity to tolerate considerable ambiguity and respond constructively to defensiveness or resistance to one’s efforts. Sensitivity to gender, cultural, and other differences needs to be coupled with a respect for and capacity to work well with the wide variety of individuals and people who may be encountered. And finally, the intervenor needs the genuineness, caring, and strength of character to build meaningful and authentic relationships with others and to persevere with them in difficult times and over the long term.

  Interpersonal Skills

  In terms of interpersonal functioning, facilitators of interpersonal conflict should develop many of the commonly trained communication and relationship-building skills of the helping professions. The ability to speak in genuine and respectful ways and convey messages in a concise, organized fashion needs to be coupled with the skills of reflective, empathic listening. Included are the importance of being able to give and receive feedback on behaviors and the ability to productively discuss differences in perceptions that often arise. Advanced skills of relating are also often useful, for example, confrontation (sensitivity to inconsistencies in another’s behavior and the capacity to describe these in a clear and nonjudgmental manner) and immediacy (the ability to relate another’s implied statements to your relationship or the situation at hand). In short, a team of facilitators needs the ability to respond to whatever messages members of antagonistic groups bring forward in a constructive and respectful fashion that does not antagonize individuals or escalate differences.

  Group Leadership Skills

  The third-party role at the group level is that of a facilitative leader, who has the capacity to help the antagonistic groups work together toward their shared goals in the intervention and in the longer term. This requires a deep knowledge of group processes and the capacity to facilitate group interaction. With regard to task leadership, the facilitator needs the abilities to design and implement agendas that engage conflicting parties in productive confrontation and to keep them on track as necessary. On the socioemotional side of leadership, the facilitator needs to provide encouragement and support, release tension at certain points, and harmonize misunderstandings. The intervenor must also be capable of dealing with disruptive or aggressive behavior that challenges the work of the group. In essence, the facilitation team must work to model and uphold the norms of analytical and respectful interaction. Their role thus combines those of discussion moderator, human relations trainer, dialogue facilitator, and process consultant.

  Intergroup Skills

 
Another important role for the intervenor is to manage the intergroup problem-solving process toward deescalation and resolution. Although based in models of group problem solving, the process at the intergroup level has additional challenges and pitfalls. The facilitator needs to understand that at best, only an uneasy coalition can be built between members or representatives of different and conflicting identity groups. That is because of the constant pull of in-group forces in ethnocentric directions, including all of the cognitive and social biases noted. Thus, moving the groups through the problem-solving process has to be a shared and mutually accepted experience at all stages. If any one stage, such as initial diagnosis or the creation of alternatives, is imbalanced through the domination of one group or biased in the interests of one group, the outcomes will not be sustainable. Mutuality and reciprocity are the keys, and the parties need to be constantly reminded that only through joint involvement and shared commitment can they be successful in dealing with their conflict.

  An additional set of skills for individuals who intend to orchestrate intergroup confrontation revolves around the ability to manage difficult interactions at the interface of two or more groups. Building on all the previous skills, this challenge requires the facilitators to design and implement constructive interchanges between individuals from the conflicting groups that will move them toward resolving their difficulties and toward a renewed relationship. The ability to control disruptive interactions (arguments, debates, mutual accusations, recriminations, and attacks on the third party or the process) needs to be combined with the skill to manage a charged agenda over time, stay on track, and move toward accomplishment and closure. At all times, the facilitator is working toward increasing mutual understanding and inducing joint problem solving. Sometimes the best that can be done is for the parties to agree to disagree, but if that is done with full understanding and a sense of respect, it is a far cry from the usual antagonism and blaming. The skills of the human relations trainer are especially useful at this level of interaction. However, when working with intergroup conflict resolution, facilitators must focus not on individuals as they interact with other individuals in the group but on how individuals are interacting in terms of their group identities with members of the other group.

  Consultation Skills

  This approach to intergroup conflict resolution is a form of professional consultation, wherein the help giver uses his or her expertise to facilitate the problem solving of the client system. Thus, skills and ethical practices that are necessary to implement the process and attain the outcomes of consultation are the final requirement for this line of work. The skills of consultation revolve around the capacity to initiate and manage the phases of consultation from contact to closure. Contact with the groups in conflict should come from a base of credibility, legitimacy, and impartiality, even in the case of a facilitation team composed of members of the two groups, where intervenors are respected within and outside their communities and balance on the team provides overall impartiality.

  In the entry process, the consultants need to assess the antagonists’ perceptions of these qualities, and all parties need to assess the goodness of fit between the intervenors’ values, capabilities, and goals and the client system’s need for consultation. If entry is successful, the consultant next concentrates on the critical process of contracting, wherein expectations of all parties are clarified and ground rules for the intervention are specified. Thus, the consultant must spell out the rationale, methods, and objectives of the proposed intervention and seek agreement of the parties on these.

  Diagnostic skills are central to the next phase of consultation, in which the intervenor gathers information about the current state of the client system—in this case, the intergroup conflict—and about the preferred state as perceived by the parties. The phase of implementation then invokes many of the skills noted wherein the consultant delivers the activities at the intergroup interface that are intended to increase the capacity for joint problem solving.

  Evaluation is the last phase prior to exit and requires the methodological skills of the social scientist in order to judge how the intervention was carried out and what its effects were, both intended and unintended. In exiting the client system, the hope of the consultant is that the parties now have the understanding and skills to manage their future relations by themselves.

  In all phases of consultation, the intervenor needs to function with a high degree of ethical conduct, including the ability to deal with ethical issues as they arise. Thus, casting this work as professional consultation adds another challenging layer to the training requirements for would-be intervenors.

  CONCLUSION

  Intergroup conflict occurs frequently and is often handled poorly at all levels of society and between societies. It is based in numerous sources and involves a complex interplay of individual perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors, as well as group factors that provide a built-in tendency for escalation. Therefore, there is a considerable need for skilled intervenors and social roles and institutions to support their practice. A wide range of knowledge, much of it from a social psychological base, yields implications for analyzing, confronting, and resolving intergroup conflict.

  One of the greatest challenges is training a wide range of professionals in the knowledge and skills required to facilitate the productive resolution of intergroup conflict. Through a combination of skills in interpersonal communication, group facilitation, intergroup problem solving, and system-level consulting, outside third parties or balanced teams of representatives can assist groups to confront their differences effectively and build long-term partnerships.

  References

  Bar-Tal, D. (ed.). Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution. New York: Psychology Press, 2011.

  Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. Group Dynamics: Key to Decision Making. Houston, TX: Gulf, 1961.

  Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. Solving Costly Organizational Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

  Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., and Mouton, J. S. Managing Intergroup Conflict in Industry. Houston, TX: Gulf, 1964.

  Brown, L. D. Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983.

  Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.

  Deutsch, M. “The Prevention of World War III: A Psychological Perspective.” Political Psychology, 1983, 4, 3–32.

  Deutsch, M. “Subjective Features of Conflict Resolution: Psychological, Social and Cultural Influences.” In R. Vayrynen (ed.), New Directions in Conflict Theory. London: Sage, 1991.

  Fischer, R., Hanke, K., and Sibley, C. G. “Cultural and Institutional Determinants of Social Dominance Orientation: A Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis of 27 Societies.” Political Psychology, 2012, 33, 437–467.

  Fisher, R. J. The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.

  Fisher, R. J. “Generic Principles for Resolving Intergroup Conflict.” Journal of Social Issues, 1994, 50, 47–66.

  Fisher, R. J. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997.

  Fisher, R. J., Grant, P. R., Hall, D. G., and others. “The Development and Testing of a Strategic Simulation of Intergroup Conflict.” Journal of Psychology, 1990, 124, 223–240.

  Fisher, R. J., and Kelman, H. C. “Perceptions in Conflict.” In D. Bar-Tal (ed.), Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution. New York: Psychology Press, 2011.

  Fisher, R. J., Kelman, H. C., and Nan, S. A. “Conflict Analysis and Resolution.” In L. Huddy, D. Sears, and J. Levy (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. (Rev. ed.) New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

  Haney, C. C., Banks, C., and Zimbardo, P. “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison.” International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1973, 1, 69–97.

  Janis, I. L. Groupthink. (2nd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.


  Katz, D. “Nationalism and Strategies of International Conflict Resolution.” In H. C. Kelman (ed.), International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

  Kriesberg, L., and Dayton, B. W. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. (4th ed.) Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.

  Levine, R. A., and Campbell, D. T. Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1972.

  Merton, R. K. Social Theory and Social Structure. (Rev. ed.) New York: Free Press, 1952.

  Moghaddam, F. M. Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2008.

  Pruitt, D. G., and Kim, S. H. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement. (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

  Roccas, S., and Elster, A. “Group Identities.” In L. R. Tropp (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

  Ross, M. H. The Culture of Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.

  Rothman, J. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.