What is conflict?

Conflict is a situation where two or more individuals or groups try to pursue goals or ambitions which
they believe they cannot share. Not all conflict is violent. Conflict is normal when there is change. Some
people want change, but others disagree. If their disagreement or their conflict is managed peacefully, it
can be a positive process. But when conflict is not managed properly, it becomes violent. In violent
conflict, people fear for their safety and survival. When we say conflict, we are usually referring to
violent conflict.

What causes conflict?

Almost world-wide, it is predictable that conflict will arise where:

• Resources are scarce and not shared fairly, as in food, housing, jobs or land.
• There is little or no communication between the two groups.
• The groups have incorrect ideas and beliefs about each other.
• Unresolved grievances exist from the past.
• Power is unevenly distributed.

Cultural violence can be the way a group has been thinking about another group for many years. It can include talk,
images or beliefs which glorify physical violence. These include:
• Hate speech: Different ethnic or cultural groups openly speak badly of each other. One group blames the
other for difficulties or problems it is suffering. Violence is encouraged to eliminate the blamed group.

• Xenophobia: A people’s or a country’s hatred or fear of another country creates misperceptions and
encourages policies which promote conflict with that country.

• Myths and legends of war heroes: A society whose popular songs and history books glorify one side’s
ancient victories can build hatred for the other side.

• Religious justifications for war: Extreme intolerance of other beliefs promotes conflict.

• Gender discrimination: To allow practices and laws against women that are not accepted against men is a
form of violence.

Structural violence is harm which is built into the laws and traditional behavior of a group or society. Harm is
permitted or ignored. It can include:

• Institutionalized racism or sexism: Laws and practices which allow unequal treatment based on race or
sex.
• Colonialism: A country’s lack of self-determination. A foreign authority forcibly assumes control over all
important decision-making processes.
• Extreme exploitation: Such as slavery.
• Poverty: The world’s leading cause of violent conflict.
 • Corruption and nepotism: Governmental decisions are influenced or decided by bribery, favoritism and
family or tribal connections.
• Structural segregation: Laws which force people to live in separate groups or places against their will.
These kinds of violence are extremely important to identify when reporting and analyzing conflict. Often
they are the real cause of direct physical violence. Ending the physical violence will not be enough. It will
happen again if the cultural and structural violence is ignored.
•

When neighbors feud, lovers quarrel or nations war, the predictable remedy prescribed by the
voices of reason is communication. The prevailing view is that, faced with conflict,
communicating is always the right thing to do: The U.N. Security Council encourages hostile
countries to "hold talks," and marriage counselors advise quarreling couples to "express their
feelings." So commonplace is the prescription, that advice to the contrary seems anomalous; it's
difficult to imagine the Secretary General imploring hostile nations to refrain from dialogue. The
positive role of communication in the amelioration of conflict seems so obvious that the premise
is seldom given serious examination.

When conflicts go unaddressed, they can have a negative impact on productivity and team work.

Using conflict resolution strategies in the workplace will help maintain a health work

environment. Conflict resolution requires specific leadership skills, problem solving abilities and

decision-making skills. However it is important to note that while solving conflicts at work , one

may need to take into consideration his/her company regulations and policies .therefore this

essay seeks to unfold the tools and techniques that are necessary to achieve harmony at work

through spirited and skilled negotiation.

Sometimes all workplace conflicts situations needs is clarification of company policy and

employee job duties. According to the information available at http//small business

.chron.com /workplace-examples-conflict-negotiation-11402 html . if two employees begin

disputing responsibility over performing a specific duty, then the situation requires a clarification

of each set of job tasks by management. Negotiating an end to a conflict caused by mis-

interpretation of policies or duties is an opportunity for the company to create clearer guidelines

that prevents these sorts of conflicts in the future .When negotiating the clarification of
guidelines , it is important to have a departmental manager ,the employees involved in the

conflict and human resources representative on hand so that the clarifications through negotiation

become part of company job duties.

George N. Root (iii) in his article entitled Workplace Examples of Conflict Negotiation stated

that conflicts can erupt in the workplace as a result of an excessive workload causing stress on

the staff .Management needs to adopt a proactive negotiation approach when it comes to elevated

work levels. It is therefore crucial to prepare employees for the rise in the workload by offering

overtime or staggering shifts to help deal with employee stress. If the workload situation is not

dealt with in advance , then conflict negotiations becomes a matter of finding solutions to ease

the extra work burden the staff feels .Additional employee breaks or bringing on part time

temporary staff may help to solve the workplace conflict

Root also argued that employees need to feel involved in the success of the company or

workplace conflict can arise. When the staff feels alienated by the management team because

management is not allowing employee input into company decisions, then employees will begin

to exhibit insubordinate behavior .Negotiating with a staff that feels alienated is a sensitive

issue .Therefore,a staff that is continually told what to do even after it has given signs that it is

unhappy will escalate the conflict with the management. Management teams need to set up ways

for employees to give input such as having managers adopt an “open door” policy or putting an

employee suggestion box in the break room and using it.

As according to Root, one other area of conflict in the workplace emanated from information

exchange .People communicate in different ways. Some require very little information to

understand a subject, while others require more information and a clearer explanation in order to
gather meaning .When employees with different ways of conveying and processing information

try to communicate in the workplace, there can sometimes be a conflict. Negotiating a

misunderstanding of information can be as simple as letting each side state its position and then

the manager acts as a facilitator who assist each side in gaining understanding. Before bringing

the paties together to solve this sort of conflict, the manager should spend time discussing the

issue with each party individually to make sure that when an understanding is made, that

understanding will not spark another conflict .

Conflicts can be solved by looking for a compromise. According to information available at

http//woman. the nest.com/effective-negotiation-workplace -17160html ,Lisa Mcquerry states

that individuals should look for creative ways for everyone to get some of what they want rather

than making negotiations all-or-nothing. For instance , if both you and your colleague need new

laptops to use on sales calls, but the budget allows for one , consider sharing the laptop or look

for two less expensive or refurbished models. While neither of you gets exactly what you want,

each of you gets something and thus conflict is resolved.

Mcquerry is also of the view that looking beyond the issue or conflict helps in negotiations.

Negotiations are often one-sided, with a definitive winner and loser. For example, if colleagues

both want time off around a holiday …but there is only one slot open on the schedule ……one

person gets it and the other one doesn’t. As part of the negotiation process, you can negotiate

beyond the original issue to at least make the compromise worthwhile. For instance, you may

concede the time off to your colleague with the understanding that you get the next two holidays

off.
Morestill, spinted and skilled negotiation involve giving others a chance to be heard. When you

carefully listen to others during a negotiation ,it can help you determine underlying factors that

can make you a more effective negotiator .Suppose you are a manager and one of your

employees is trying to negotiate part time hours so he/she can spend more time with kids.The

number of hours might not be the real issue. What an individual really wants is more time with

his/her family .In this situation , you can let one telecommunicate from home a day or two a

week with the understanding that one still works a full time schedule . Under this negotiation ,

one gets more time with his/her family and you keep your full time position covered

Krivis (2007), states that negotiation is refraining a situation in order to get people to shift their

positions in a way that makes a resolution possible. Krivis is of the view that conflicts in all

business areas result in disagreements and arguments that that hurt not only their productivity but

the productivity of their co-workers. Therefore, appealing to the parties on an emotional level to

help them understand each other’s position could be one such method in solving conflicts in the

workplace.

Krivis portrayed that when you appeal to emotions, you are seeking to get parties acknowledge

some sense of responsibility for their actions. By the time your employees bring their problems

to you, they will probably be fairly well entrenched in their beliefs about who is right and who is

wrong. Therefore an emotional appeal forces each party to consider how the other might feel and

what the person might have gone through as a result of the conduct alleged. Some people, in fact,

operate through the “emotional” intelligence than through than through reasoned logic. Thus, for

them connecting emotionally with the situation helps them better understand the other party.
Tirando (2009) noted that if conflicts are to be successfully solved, there is need of skilled

negotiators. Tirando laid bare the four C’s of conflict management in the workplace, that is;

connect, clarify, confirm and contract. Matters have to be addressed openly and candidly, seek

understanding by active listening and generating alternatives, reach mutual agreement as to what

each party wants and needs and establish willingness and finally negotiate agreements for culture

interactions respectively.

In their publication, Managing Conflict in the workplace, Gatlin and others cited Robin (2002)

who zeroes in out one other method of resolving conflicts. They generally agree that a number of

conflict resolution styles exist and none are right or wrong, they are just different. Robin talks

about the idea of confronting. This approach directly addresses the conflict and is often viewed

as “might makes right.” A confrontational style usually involves high emotional levels, clear

clarity of goals, weak relationships, and low concern for formalities or fear of punishment,

moderate concerns for traditions and a moderate self-concept. Therefore it is valid for one to

argue that skilled negotiation involves various matters in as much as the issue of solving

conflicts in the workplace is concerned.

In conclusion, workplace conflict resolution requires spirited and skilled negotiations. Looking

beyond areas of conflicts, engaging in active listening, clarification of goals and policies and

active involvement of employees in decision making helps fight and resolve conflicts in the

workplace.