Conflict Resolution Methods

Conflict Resolution Methods

Abstract

Conflict resolution refers to the various processes and methods that are used to facilitate a peaceful or amicable ending of conflict and retribution. It involves members in a conflict or dispute attempting to resolve it through active communication of the motives of the conflict and engaging each other in conservation with an aim of putting an end to the dispute or conflict. There are various methods of resolving conflicts, including negotiation, dialogue, and litigation. In this paper, alternative methods of conflict resolution, besides litigation, are discussed in detail. The advantages of using each identified method of conflict resolution are also discussed. The terms conflict resolution and dispute resolution are used interchangeably in this paper since conflict can be looked at as a dispute between two or more parties. Methods of conflict resolution such as negotiation, facilitation, mediation, dialogue, and consensual decision making are discussed, as well as how they are better than litigation in the process of conflict resolution.

Keywords: dispute, conflict, impasse, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation, dialogue, organizational change, consensual decision making.

Conflict Resolution Methods

Introduction

When conflicts or disputes arise between various parties, the conventional method of resolution is through litigation or the use of the court process. Over the years, however, various options to litigation have beendeveloped for purposes of resolving disputes. These methods are collectively referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR). ADR methods involve an independent and impartial third party bringing the parties in dispute together to communicate with each other and reach an agreement, resolving the stalemate or dispute (Tillett & French, 1991). These alternative methods have been developed as options to the time consuming and cost-inefficient methods of resolving disputes through the court system’s judicial proceedings. They ensure that conflicts are resolved within a short time and ensure that the various disadvantages of the court system of dispute resolution are avoided.

The major objective of alternative methods of conflict resolution is to ensure that disputes are resolved in a faster and simpler manner, and in a way that does not impair the sovereignty of the judicial system. What sets apart alternative dispute resolution methods from court proceedings is the fact that the rules or agreements reached through ADR methods are not binding for the parties in conflict, unless agreed upon by the parties. Alternative processes of resolving disputes are numerous, and each country decides which methods are best suited for parties in conflict, depending on the facts of the conflict and the social and economic circumstances. Some of the common ADR methods include negotiation, arbitration, mediation, and dialogue (Burton, Mason, & Dukes, 1990). Some of these methods are discussed in this paper.

Negotiation, Facilitation, and Mediation

Despite being three different methods of resolving disputes between parties in conflict, negotiation, mediation, and facilitation are often used together in the resolution of conflicts. These methods are used to resolve disputes between any type of parties that are not able to reach an agreement. Negotiation, mediation, and facilitation aim to ensure that a conflict is resolved fast before the parties move to the court system of dispute resolution (Burton et al., 1990). While parties in conflict may engage in a negotiation by themselves, facilitation and mediation involve a third party either making decisions or helping the parties in conflict arrive at an agreeable decision together. Negotiation refers to a conflict resolution process where two or more parties in conflict bargain between their differing interests (Tillett & French, 1991). The parties in conflict may conduct the bargaining or negotiation directly by themselves or can conduct negotiation with the help of a third party.

The third party in such a case is referred to as a facilitator or mediator, hence explaining the interaction between negotiation, mediation, and facilitation. Negotiation begins with the parties in conflict meeting to resolve the dispute, bargaining until they are able to arrive at a consensus and agree on the way forward. Facilitation refers to the act of fostering conflict resolution through skilled leadership and guidance. Facilitation involves leadership that focuses on organizing the meeting of parties in conflict to ensure that they communicate and resolve their differences (Burton et al., 1990). A third party, who has to be impartial and independent, facilitates the resolution of conflict by engaging the parties in conflict and convincing them to have a sit-down to resolving the conflict between them.

Mediation is quite similar to facilitation. In mediation, an experienced and well-trained third party is used to assist parties in conflict to reach an agreement on the various issues that they disagree on (Moore, 2014). The third party is referred to as a mediator, and the mediator has to be independent, impartial, neutral, and not aligned to any of the parties to the conflict (Boulle & Rycrof, 1998). The mediator is usually appointed by a court of law of another body of authority. In addition, the mediator has no authority to make decisions on behalf of the parties. The mediator only plays the role of bringing the parties in conflict together to discuss their dispute and arrive at a consensus.

Negotiation and Mediation

All the parties in conflict have to be included in mediation by agreeing to be part of it. A party cannot be coerced into mediation, which means that they have to enter mediation voluntarily (Wall Jr & Lynn, 1993). The conflicting parties have to agree to work together to reach an agreement so that mediation can be effective. The mediator helps the parties in dispute to negotiate and arrive at a consensus by providing them with suggestions on the various possible compromises that they may agree on to resolve the existing conflict (Moore, 2014). The parties may either agree on one compromise position that the mediator suggests or come up with their own compromise position. When an agreement is arrived at through mediation and negotiation, the agreement is looked at as a commitment for the parties involved (Nadler, 2003). Mediation and negotiation involve the writing down of the agenda, the memoranda and minutes during meetings, and a written down agreement between the parties involved. Negotiation meetings are confidential and only the parties involved are invited.

Mediation and facilitation are similar in that the participants in the conflict resolution work together towards a mutual understanding or agreement, with the assistance of an experienced leader or third party; a mediator or a facilitator. However, whereas facilitation aims at establishing a consensus between parties from the beginning of a discussion or project to its end (Nadler, 2003), mediation is utilized where an impasse has occurred, as a method to resolve it. During projects, working as a team, and in community work, sometimes parties disagree and their efforts to reach an agreement lead to an impasse. In such cases, the parties need a method that is effective in the resolution of differences. Negotiation and mediation are some of the most commonly used methods of resolving disagreements in organizations and in the community.

Benefits of Using Mediation and Negotiation

Mediation and negotiation are highly-effective methods of resolving conflict since they focus on problem-solving and do not take an adversarial approach. They ensure that parties in conflict resolve the differences that they have easily, without having to go to court or go through the judicial system of dispute resolution. Mediation and negotiation facilitate dispute resolution by assisting parties in conflict to address the primary concerns and areas of disagreement. Mediators and facilitators work together with the parties in conflict to come up with an agreeable solution to an existing problem or disagreement (Nadler, 2003). Mediators and facilitators help parties resolve their differences without imposing their own decision on them. This way, a decision that is unpopular or polarizing is avoided.

Through mediation, controversy on public issues is eliminated. A good example would be a scenario where a community and a private property developer are in conflict over public resources. In such a scenario, a mediator from the government may come in to officiate negotiations between the community and the private developer, suggesting possible compromise situations to resolve the dispute between the parties in conflict. Negotiation, facilitation, and mediation provide parties with a semi-formal and well-structured method of reaching an agreement (Tillett & French, 1991). The agreement or consensus reached through negotiation is non-binding on the parties and they are not required to commit to the outcome. The alternative to these methods of resolving conflict is litigation.

Litigation, or the use of the court system, can be very costly and time-consuming since it involves several court sittings and debates that are not productive. Through negotiation and mediation, parties can resolve their disputes quickly and avoid wasting time in courts. They are also able to save money and remain friendly with each other, as these methods do not involve a decision being imposed on any part by the mediator or facilitator (Boulle & Rycrof, 1998). The dispute is resolved through a compromise by the parties involved and a mutual commitment to abide by the agreed-upon decision after a successful negotiation.

Negotiation is very useful in scenarios or situations that are informal. This is because it helps the parties in conflict to resolve their differences quickly without involving other groups of people and authorities such as courts. The resolution of conflicts is, therefore, localized with negotiation. Negotiation is effective when utilized before an impasse is reached between parties, or before polarization (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2011). When a process reaches an impasse, however, mediation is used for resolution of the impasse and arrival at an agreement. The parties in a dispute have the liberty of appointing or electing their representatives in a negotiation or mediation process in order to avoid holding large meetings that are unwieldy and difficult to control. In order to appoint representatives, a party or group has to be well-organized so as to effectively identify qualified leaders who can represent the group in the negotiations credibly.

A small-sized group of negotiators is easy to handle and deal with for the mediator, and results in quicker resolution of conflict. A huge group of negotiators can be difficult to manage and can be rowdy, resulting in delays and impasses during negotiations (Deutsch et al., 2011). It may take a lot of time to reach a consensus with a huge group of people. Appointing representatives requires a very high degree of trust and cooperation within a group. The members have to agree on the representatives that will best represent the interests of the entire group. In the example given earlier, about a community in dispute with a private developer, the community may appoint church leaders or community elders to represent the whole community at the negotiation table with the private developer.

The process of mediation involves several meetings between the parties in conflict, officiated by the mediator. Negotiation, on the other hand, involves a single meeting or two. During these meetings, the parties, or their representatives, are given equal status and are encouraged to feel free to voice all their concerns and present their views on every issue being discussed. In order to be effective and successful, negotiations and mediations have to strive for: timely and regular opportunities for the participation of both parties; honest and full expression of the concerns and issues of the participants; a commitment that is on-going, from all the participants, to be present at all meetings; the willingness of every participant to listen to the other participants and their concerns; and an agreement from all parties to abide to the process guidelines and agreements (Deutsch et al., 2011).

A mediator has to be neutral and impartial (Moore, 2014). This way, none of the parties feels that its interests are not taken into consideration. When a mediator’s neutrality on the issues of concern is in question, the mediator should step down and let another individual mediate the negotiations. Neutrality is important as it ensures that the mediator comes up with various creative compromise positions for the parties, without bias or showing favor for any of the parties. While an amateur or inexperienced negotiator looks at negotiation as a simple exchange of positions between two parties that are heated, with each party trying to win the negotiation, a good and experienced negotiator does not take a win-lose strategy for negotiating. Good negotiators and mediators strive to achieve a win-win situation during negotiations.

The main objective of any form of conflict resolution method is to arrive at a decision that is supported by all the parties in conflict. The decision reached has to address the concerns of the parties in conflict and resolve their key concerns. The outcome of any conflict resolution process should be a consensus on the appropriate course of action (Deutsch et al., 2011). In order to reach a consensus, there is a need for commitment from all the parties in conflict. In addition, the mediation and negotiations have to be used for many months and years to maintain the commitment of parties. The mediator reminds the parties of the importance of their commitment to the negotiations and to the consensus.

In team projects and public activities, mediation can be used to address the priorities and develop policies. Parties can negotiate on what they think should be accomplished first and come up with an agreed-upon list of project priorities. The parties brought together through a mediator can agree upon a set of policies or regulations to govern the project to be undertaken, avoiding any potential obstacles, disagreements, and disputes in the execution of the project. In addition to having neutrality, a mediator has to have training in dispute resolution and mediation. Mediation and negotiation are quite flexible methods of resolving disputes. These processes are used in the resolution of minor and major conflicts; in long-term planning and project development; and take place over different ranges of time frames. They are highly-effective with either large or small groups and can be conducted in any region or context.

Mediation and negotiation can be used to resolve disputes between groups and disputes within a group. The choice of the most appropriate method for dispute resolution depends on the characteristics of the dispute, the parties involved, the circumstances of the dispute, and the preferred conflict resolution strategy. Negotiation dispute resolution process is most appropriate and effective before an impasse is reached by the parties in conflict. Mediation is most appropriate and effective when consensus-building between parties has failed and the parties are at an impasse. Both processes are part of a continuous participatory process that involves activities such as working in groups, holding group meetings, holding various discussion sessions, providing responses to concerns and comments by participants.

The Role of a Mediator

All the parties involved have to perceive the mediator as neutral and impartial. It helps when the mediator has experience from different negotiation and mediation situations, especially in various fields such as law, public planning, business management, and government (Boulle & Rycrof, 1998). The mediator should also not have any stakes in the outcome of the mediation. A mediator has to have a good relationship of trust with the parties in conflict. This relationship is only developed through the impartiality and fairness portrayed by the mediator. If the parties do not trust the mediator, the conflict resolution will be unsuccessful. This is why it is of utmost importance that the mediator is impartial, neutral, and fair to all the parties in conflict. The mediator has to have the ability to come up with suggestions on how to resolve a conflict by finding the areas of agreement and developing compromise positions for the parties to consider.

It is also the duty of the mediator to develop a draft document that is used to list down the proceedings of the negotiations. This draft document is regularly modified with every agreement and the minutes of every discussion held, showing the journey towards the point where parties arrive at a consensus. The mediator should be an individual that is able to come up with possible solutions to a problem quickly and be ready to monitor the implementation of the agreed-upon course of action (Boulle & Rycrof, 1998). The mediator needs to have a good understanding of how to officiate interest-based negotiations, either through experience or training. Both negotiation and mediation begin with the assessment of the conflict or dispute. The mediator is responsible for conducting a conflict assessment, which is done by asking questions such as whether the conflict is resolvable and what the possible approaches for resolution are.

Where a conflict is specific and the parties are a small group, or two individuals, the negotiation may take a very short time, perhaps even a few minutes or hours. This is especially true where the parties already have a trusting relationship in place. After the conflict assessment, the mediator moves on to identify the key participants in the negotiations so as to ensure that they are afforded an equal standing during the meetings. The mediator also has to schedule the negotiations sessions in a manner that encourages the participation of the parties in conflict (Nolan-Haley, 2012). Sometimes a conflict is complex with many issues to be negotiated and discussed. The negotiation could involve several stakeholders or large groups of people. In such cases, mediation could take several months to be complete, after which the mediator will do follow up work to ensure that the implementation of the decision arrived at is successful.

The mediator should find a neutral ground or location for the negotiation meetings and talks (Boulle & Rycrof, 1998). The time for the meetings should be convenient for the parties in conflict. Therefore, consulting all the parties in conflict is important when scheduling meetings. In addition, the schedule of the meetings should provide for enough time between meetings to do any necessary follow-ups and analysis. During negotiations where a mediator is involved, the work of the mediator generally involves opening up the discussion or meeting and outlining the process (Nolan-Haley, 2012); ensuring that the participants reach an agreement on the scope of effort and their individual roles; ensuring that the parties explain and understand the reasons for the conflict; ensuring that the parties or participants agree on the agenda of the negotiation; reviewing the ground rules for the meetings; helping the parties express their views and issues fully; restating all the issues of concern during subsequent meetings; conducting a review of any agreements that are determined; working with all parties to come up with a solution to the conflict; coming up with alternative compromise positions for solving the conflict or bringing the parties together; and documenting all the points of agreement during the negotiation.

There may be instances when the parties in conflict or the representatives of the parties may feel uncomfortable meeting in the same room with their opponents. When this is the case, the mediator needs to meet with each of the parties, individually, to agree with them on every step of the conflict resolution process (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). The mediator will have to carry proposals and documented discussions and agreements to each party in a different room until all the issues have been discussed with all the parties and resolved. The mediator will inform each party of the agreement and resolution with the opponent party, and discuss every step of the mediation process with each party until a solution is arrived at. In such cases, the parties have to pledge confidentiality throughout the process. In some cases, the use of a mediator is done confidentially and only the outcome of the mediation if publicized.

The mediator plays an important role in convincing the parties to change their positions and reach an agreement. As a third party, the mediator is responsible for guiding the opponent parties towards the finding of compatible or shared interests. This is a very effective method of ensuring that parties change their positions. During a conflict, each party takes a strong position and assume that it is the only answer to addressing their interests and needs. The function of a negotiation or mediation is to find other alternative positions to address the interests of each party. The mediator assists the parties in the process of finding alternative positions that address their needs (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). A perfect solution has to be a position that addresses the interests of a party and is easier for the other party to consider and accept.

The third-party individual helps the parties find common ground by ensuring that they identify their common interests and the interests that they are willing to compromise on. This is achieved by asking the parties questions meant to identify their key desires and interests. This way, the mediator is able to identify any unidentified interests or needs of the parties. The mediator then breaks down the key interests of each party into specific issues or elements, so as to ensure that the negotiations focus on the main areas of disagreement. The mediator then moves to suggest alternative positions to the parties, positions that could solve the disagreement through a compromise from all the parties (Bercovitch & Kadayifci-Orellana, 2009). There are always alternative ways of addressing the interests of a party, ways that may be more agreeable with the interests of the other party. It is the role of the mediator to suggest possible alternative positions. An experienced mediator works towards the achievement of a consensus, rather than focusing on the positions that the parties are taking. Working towards the achievement of a consensus results in decision-making that is cooperative, eventually leading to consensus-building.

Drawbacks of Negotiation and Mediation

Dispute resolution processes such as mediation and negotiations that are long-term may involve large numbers of interests. A large number of interests adds time to the resolution process, especially where the negotiation or mediation is following an unsuccessful previous resolution process. Such a conflict resolution process requires significant organization and management efforts (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2001). In some cases, the negotiation effort may take even a whole year to complete. Hiring an experienced or trained negotiator or mediator is quite expensive. It is obviously much more costly to hire an experienced negotiator rather than use an individual from the party (an in-house individual). While hiring a trained mediator or negotiator results in a more successful and neutral mediation and negotiation, it can be quite expensive for some parties. Using an in-house individual as a mediator or negotiator is cheaper. However, neutrality can often not be guaranteed in such cases.

It may be necessary to provide special training and preparation to the participants in a negotiation or mediation. When groups or parties are not adequately organized to participate in a mediation or negotiation, they must be given special consideration and provided with special training and preparation. For instance, where a community without leadership or organization is to engage in mediation, the mediator will have to provide printed materials and brief the community as often as necessary to ensure that the participants of the mediation are provided with a level playing field in terms of understanding and knowledge. This will ensure that all parties participate effectively in the mediation process. Some parties may not even understand how mediation or negotiation works. It is, therefore, important that the third party determines the level of understanding and knowledge of the parties before the commencement of the conflict resolution process.

The parties involved in mediation or negotiation are not always pleased or acceptive of the outcome of the process (Bercovitch & Kadayifci-Orellana, 2009). This is especially common where mediation is utilized after parties have already dug in their heels in the conflict and perceive any compromise or alteration of their position as a loss. A conflict could be based on basic values and ideas such as the environmental impact of opening up a factory in a community. When a huge power imbalance exists among the interests of the parties, a mediation process often raises or builds up expectations among the parties that are less powerful. These expectations are often not fulfilled, which results in an unsuccessful mediation process (Goldberg, Sander, Rogers, & Cole, 2014). There may be cases where the consensus unravels. This may occur when the participants start drifting away from the process over time. This can be noticed through poor attendance, which suggests a lack of trust in the process. The resulting consensus will be weak and unsustainable in action. A consensus may also unravel when an agreement is broken, a principle is forgotten, or when the priorities identified during preparation are not followed.

Facilitation

Facilitation is very similar to mediation, especially in terms of the requirements for successful facilitation and the role of the facilitator. For an effective facilitation process, the following requirements have to be met:

The presence of a neutral individual with training in facilitation. For the purposes of facilitation, an internal or external facilitator may be used. The only important aspect here is that the facilitator is considered neutral by the parties in dispute and that he or she acts in a neutral manner (Elliott, 1999). When two groups within an organization are in conflict, a facilitator may come from within the organization or can be hired from outside. The facilitator has to pledge confidentiality and avoid bias during the process. An untrained facilitator may be effective. However, training and experience help a facilitator avoid compromising their neutrality and helps them in finding ways to encourage the parties to communicate effectively.

Participation and commitment from all the interested parties. Facilitation involves guiding parties in disagreement towards the improvement of communication and understanding between them, which results in the formation of an agreement. It cannot be effective with just a unilateral change in position by a single party (Ross & Stillinger, 1991). All the parties that are involved have to participate and go through the process together to achieve the desired result.

Willingness to learn and adapt. All the parties in the dispute have to be willing to learn as the process of facilitation proceeds and to adapt as necessary (Elliott, 1999). A party that is not willing to change or modify their positions and behavior makes it very difficult for conflict resolution to achieve success. All the parties, therefore, have to be prepared in advance, by the facilitator, by asking them and receiving confirmation that they are willing to brainstorm and learn through the process.

Commitment from authorities or top-level management. In order to ensure that all the stakeholders are on the same page, it is important to confirm that the higher authorities are willing to honor the outcome of the process. The direct involvement of the top-level management or the authorities, depending on the context, is not required. However, their approval is important and a requirement for arrival at a solution.

The Role of a Facilitator

In facilitation, the facilitator plays a role that is similar to that which is played by the mediator in the process of mediation. The following are the functions of a facilitator:

Before the beginning of the process or the meetings. The facilitator develops preparation questions. Prior to the commencement of the process, the facilitator will meet the parties individually and ask them questions related to the issues in question. He or she will listen and validate the issues without critiquing or agreeing with them. This activity prepares the facilitator and the parties by making them feel valued and heard, ensuring that they vent their emotions, and enabling the facilitator to identify what will be discussed in the meetings. Examples of preparation questions include (Elliott, 1999): What are the various issues of disagreement? What are the key issues from your perspective? What are the issues from the perspective of the other party? What is necessary to resolve the issues? What needs or interests need to be met? What do you think the other parties want? What would you propose to resolve the issues and meet all the interests? Are you willing to sit and talk with the other parties to resolve the dispute? What might convince the other parties to be reasonable and accept your proposals? After meeting with the parties individually and asking them the preparation questions, the facilitator then invites them to a meeting, or various meetings, providing them with an opportunity to present their issues to each other.

During the meetings. At the start of every meeting, the facilitator asks the parties to discuss and agree on the objectives of the meeting. The parties determine whether the meeting aims at simply obtaining a clearer picture of the issues or to discuss the issues and come to an agreement. The facilitator discusses the time constraints with the parties, as well as the ground rules for discussion and communication. These include rules such as not interrupting others while they have the floor and not critiquing the ideas of others until they have laid all their points on the table. After all the ground rules and the objective of the meeting have been established, the facilitator moves on to the next stage, which involves encouraging the parties to agree on the main problem first (Elliott, 1999). The parties have to agree on the problem so that they can eventually agree on the solution. While this may not be important, it kickstarts the conversation and encourages open communication. Even if the parties do not agree on the problem, the fact that they are communicating is the most important during the initial stages of conflict resolution.

The facilitator then prioritizes the various issues to be discussed, after which he or she focuses on each issue in the order of importance. The facilitator may either propose an agenda and take the lead role in the discussion of each issue or they may help the parties to build an agenda together (Camacho, 2002). The facilitator may pose the preparation questions once more before the meeting so that all the participants of the meeting can hear the responses. He or she may also initiate a brainstorming session so that the parties can identify new alternative positions that everyone can agree to.

At the end of the facilitation process. After the completion of the meetings and the resolution of the issues, the facilitator suggests that the parties draft a written agreement that specifies the various actions that will be taken by each of them to implement the agreed-upon options or course of action. It is always important to have a written agreement for the purposes of follow-ups and clarifications (Camacho, 2002).

Dialogue

Dialogue refers to a conversation between two or more people. It is different from a debate, where people seek to beat down their opponents. Dialogue involves a commitment to listen, understand, and question the opinion or issues of an individual with a curious mindset, with the aim of seeking a common understanding. The participants of a dialogue listen to each other, reflect on what the other parties say, and question them in a way that encourages understanding and agreement. A resolution dialogue is a type of dialogue whose sole purpose is to resolve an existing dispute. Dialogue only achieves effectiveness when the parties involved suspend any judgments and assumptions that they may have, in order to encourage effective communication and find a common understanding. Any individual who refuses to suspend their assumptions and judgments in order to understand the other party and find a shared understanding is not ready to participate in resolution dialogues (Ross & Stillinger, 1991).

The participants in a dialogue have to nurture their ability to engage in listening, collective thinking, reflection, and inquiry for the purposes of developing meaningful and effective dialogue. Meaningful and trustful relationships have to be established for dialogue to be effective. A resolution dialogue is usually officiated by a neutral individual, who can be referred to as a facilitator or a mediator (Goldberg et al., 2014). Dialogue may, however, be conducted between two parties without the presence of a facilitator. For instance, a manager who has promoted a worker may be confronted by another worker who feels that she deserved to be promoted too. In such a case, the manager will kickstart a dialogue to try and explain why the promoted employee deserved the promotion while listening to why the aggrieved employee thinks that she deserved the promotion.

The Dialogue Process

The dialogue process, with or without a facilitator, can be an effective way of resolving disputes, especially where only two or three individuals are involved in a disagreement or misunderstanding. The dialogue process involves the following steps:

Establish or set up a safe environment for the dialogue. During this stage, the facilitator or the party initiating the dialogue should clarify the objective of the dialogue and establish a dialogue agenda with the various issues that will be explored. At this stage, a consensus has to be established between the parties as to the structure of the dialogue meeting and the purpose of the dialogue.

Development of a common or shared personal and conceptual knowledge base. A common knowledge base is developed by exploring the various assumptions and judgments that are being made by the parties. These are the various convictions, beliefs, and assumptions that parties have to suspend in pursuit of a common understanding. Assumptions and beliefs tend to prevent one from actively listening and thinking creatively. It is important that parties learn to listen effectively. Listen can be a challenge as people have a tendency to get defensive during a conflict of interests (Aureli & Smucny, 2000). In a dialogue, the parties have to set aside their defensiveness and judgments and listen. The party initiating the dialogue has to invite the other party to sit down and speak their feelings out about the conflict. The party listening should let the party speaking narrate their discomfort until they are finished.

Mirroring. After listening, the party who invited the other to the dialogue (or the facilitator) repeats back what they heard just to clarify all the information provided. This is referred to as mirroring and is important as it helps in retaining a party’s frustration and anger. It is important that the listening individual does not interrupt or get defensive, as that will only result in an explosion of emotion (Aureli & Smucny, 2000). By mirroring, a party shows that they are listening and that they want to resolve the dispute. During mirroring, the individual may ask for more information to make sure that they fully understand the aggrieved party.

Validate and empathize. The individual who initiated the dialogue should make the aggrieved party aware that their contributions are important. He or she should appreciate the willingness of the other party to open up and voice their disgruntlement. Regardless of whether their feelings or complaints are right or wrong, one should recognize the information provided and the willingness to talk and resolve the issues. It also helps to empathize with the other party in order to determine how they may be feeling (Stephan & Finlay, 1999).

Respond. After validating and empathizing, the individual who called the meeting should now give a response to the complaints. By now, the other individual or party will be willing to listen. The individual should explain their point of view and position, giving their opinion and the reasons why they acted in a way that resulted in the conflict. If interrupted or interjected, they should politely request the other party to let them finish since they had their time and were not interrupted. The response given should address the various specific issues that are raised with a view to probe and deepen dialogue and avoid assumptions (Goldberg et al., 2014). The response should eliminate any judgments and beliefs, opening up an avenue for creative thinking and curiosity. It should also provide an explanation of the reasons why a conflict arose and justification for the action. The aggrieved party may then be given an opportunity to address some issues that may have been skipped in the response. The process is repeated until a common ground and understanding is established.

Action. The final step is to move from dialogue to action, which involves conducting an assessment of the experiences and discussions from the dialogue, obtaining learning from them, and taking advantage of the learning to develop new skills for effective communication, problem-solving, and reaching decisions together. At this stage, a solution to the conflict is identified and the parties that were in conflict have a common understanding. Resolution dialogue is an effective method of resolving disputes in families, in the community, at school, at work, and in any other context where people are in disagreement.

Organizational Change

It is not possible to avoid conflict in organizations and institutions, especially business organizations that involve the interaction of a large number of people with different interests. People have different styles of communicating, different values, different styles of working, and different personalities. Organizational conflict can be minimized and resolved through organizational change (Goldberg et al., 2014). Organizational change refers to a change in how an organization is managed, how decisions are made within an organization, how communication is conducted within an organization, and how disagreements are resolved within an organization. There are various changes that organizations can make in order to resolve conflict and minimize the chances of conflicts arising. The following are some of the changes that can be made in an organization to minimize and resolve conflict:

Providing managers and employees with conflict resolution training. The impact of conflict within an organization can be reduced by providing employees with training to develop their conflict resolution skills (Thomas, 1992). With training, employees become more confident in their ability to resolve any professional and personal conflict that they may find themselves in. Employees become more effective at addressing the minor disagreements that occur between them during work, rather than waiting for them to build up and become complex problems within an organization.

Training employees on communication skills and establishing an environment that allows for effective and honest communication. Employees who are able to communicate with each other effectively are able to avoid misunderstanding and conflict. Through the provision of communication training, communication problems are avoided. Most organizational conflicts arise as a result of miscommunication or ineffective communication (Thomas, 1992). Communication within an organization can be improved by utilizing problem-solving and informational meetings, encouraging face-to-face discussions, and encouraging honest communication through texting, emails, video conferencing, and posting memos on bulletin boards.

Establishing positive work relationships. Employees should be given a chance to get to interact with each other and know each other better (Doherty & Guyler, 2008). This way, they will feel more comfortable with each other and many misunderstandings will be avoided. Organizations may achieve this through the provision of opportunities for social interaction or the giving of team assignments. The organization should encourage team building activities, as they build strong team relationships and work relationships. They also provide employees with an opportunity to develop effective ways of interacting with each other, to come up with ways of determining how to resolve conflict, and new ways of avoiding misunderstandings.

Establishing an environment that encourages and supports participation. Organizations can establish an environment that encourages participation from everyone by introducing employee involvement programs such as work teams that are self-directed (Doherty & Guyler, 2008). Processes within an organization should ask for employee input and provide rewards for employees who participate.

Provision of conflict mediation training for managers. Despite all the efforts that an organization may put in to ensure that conflict does not arise, conflict cannot be avoided. It is, therefore, important for the managers and leaders within an organization to be experienced in mediation and other processes of conflict resolution. Training should be provided to equip managers with conflict mediation skills to enable them to assist employees to resolve conflict within the organization.

Ensuring that employees are clear on the organizational goals and priorities. A lot of conflict within organizations arises because the employees differ in terms of methods, values, facts, and goals. It is important to ensure that employees are adequately informed on the objectives of the organization, the plans and priorities, and the goals of the organization so as to avoid disagreements and conflict on priorities and goals.

By making these changes, organizations are able to minimize conflict within them and establish a good environment for the resolution of conflict (Doherty & Guyler, 2008).

Consensual Decision-making

Consensual decision making is a method of resolving conflict by ensuring that all the decisions are made with the inclusion of all the parties and individuals. It is a dynamic method of arriving at an agreement between all the members in a group. Rather than making decisions through a simple vote or having the majority get their way during decisions, consensual decision making involves finding a solution or making a decision that every member of the group supports or accepts (Masters & Albright, 2002). This ensures that every concern, idea, and opinion of the members is taken into account before the making of a decision. A group that uses consensual decision making avoid disagreement and conflict by ensuring that all members agree before a decision is made.

Consensual decision making involves the sharing of power. It enables a group to take collective control over every decision that affects its members. It involves a process of dialogue between equal members, and the members work together so as to fulfill the needs of everyone. Consensual decision-making focuses on meeting every member’s needs by finding a balance between the needs of all the members (Masters & Albright, 2002). Members are honest with each other and trust each other, as they are all equal. It involves dialogue amongst the members of a group to establish a win-win situation for all the members. Conflict is avoided through consensual decision-making, while conflict that arises due to opposite interests are resolved through dialogue before any decision is made. When all the members of a group agree with a decision, they are more likely to implement it and respect it, which ensures that the implementation process is seamless. Lastly, consensual decision making protects the interests and needs of the minority. The needs of every individual are treated equally, which results in addressing everyone’s needs.

Conclusion

It is not possible to avoid conflict in the society, in institutions, in communities, and organizations. While efforts can be made to minimize conflict, there is a need to be well-informed on the various ways of addressing and resolving conflict when it arises. Conflict may either be resolved through litigation (the court process) or through the ADR methods. Negotiation, mediation, facilitation, dialogue, consensual decision-making, and organizational change are some of the most commonly used ADR methods. Alternative dispute resolution methods are effective in the resolution of conflict and provide benefits such as solving conflict within a short period of time and ensuring that a good relationship is established between parties in conflict, after the resolution of the conflict. The choice of method to be used depends on the circumstances of the conflict, the parties involved, and the type and complexity of the conflict (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2001).

References

Aureli, F., & Smucny, D. A. (2000). The role of emotion in conflict and conflict resolution. Natural conflict resolution, 199-224.

Bercovitch, J., & Jackson, R. (2001). Negotiation or mediation? An exploration of factors affecting the choice of conflict management in international conflict. Negotiation Journal, 17(1), 59-77.

Bercovitch, J., & Kadayifci-Orellana, A. (2009). Religion and mediation: The role of faith-based actors in international conflict resolution. International Negotiation, 14(1), 175-204.

Boulle, L., & Rycrof, A. (1998). Mediation: principles, process, practice. JS Afr. L., 167.

Burton, J. W., Mason, G., & Dukes, F. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and Prevention (Vol. 1). London: Macmillan.

Camacho, S. F. (2002). Addressing conflict rooted in diversity: The role of the facilitator. Social Work with Groups, 24(3-4), 135-152.

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Doherty, N., & Guyler, M. (2008). The essential guide to workplace mediation & conflict resolution: rebuilding working relationships. Kogan Page Publishers.

Elliott, M. L. P. (1999). The role of facilitators, mediators, and other consensus building practitioners. The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, 199-240.

Goldberg, S. B., Sander, F. E., Rogers, N. H., & Cole, S. R. (2014). Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation and other processes. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Masters, M. F., & Albright, R. R. (2002). The complete guide to conflict resolution in the workplace. Amacom Books.

Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.

Nadler, J. (2003). Rapport in negotiation and conflict resolution. Marq. L. Rev., 87, 875.

Nolan-Haley, J. (2012). Mediation: The new arbitration. Harv. Negot. L. Rev., 17, 61.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Ross, L., & Stillinger, C. (1991). Barriers to conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal, 7(4), 389-404.

Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729-743.

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations.

Tillett, G., & French, B. (1991). Resolving conflict: A practical approach (Vol. 199, No. 1). Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Wall Jr, J. A., & Lynn, A. (1993). Mediation: A current review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(1), 160-194.