SCRATCH FILE -- FOR CUT AND PAST ONLY
of
Are you
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, this website is for you!
F:\!!USIP_Pre-HTML\usipintro.s1 December 18, 1997
HOW THIS PROGRAM CAN BE USED
This program can be used in a variety of ways. It can be searched quickly to find a
solution to a particular problem. Or it can be studied in some detail--to learn more about
resolution-resistant conflicts in general and how they can be most effectively approached.
The program can be used by itself by people who have little or no experience in conflict
management. It can also be used, however, to supplement other conflict management training
or reading. Since we take a somewhat different approach to conflict management and
resolution than is common among our colleagues, the material on this website is likely to
give users a new perspective and additional ideas about how best to confront difficult
conflict situations.
All the information on this web-site is available for free. Users can study as much or as little as they wish without incurring any costs (beyond computer access costs). However, a certificate of completion and/or university credit is available (for a small fee) for those who want to work through a considerable amount of the material presented and complete the assignments. For more information on these options, choose one (or more) of the items below.
completing this on-line training program
How to obtain a
Certificate of Completion
or
Three hours of Credit from
the University of Colorado Department of Continuing Education
for completing the study modules available here
Certificate info: fill in
Credit info: fill in
Click here to see the certificate and full credit course descriptions.
TO FIND A SOLUTION TO A PARTICULAR PROBLEM
To skip the general introductory information and go directly to the details of how to
approach a particular problem, click on the "problem list" button below.
This button will take you to a list of questions about common conflict problems. Read through this list, selecting the questions that you are interested in. Your selections will link you to relevant readings and activities.
If you find the material presented in the questions or the answers to be confusing, or if you want to learn more about the constructive confrontation approach to intractable conflicts, click on the "theoretical approach" button to learn why the information is organized as it is, and how the approach presented here differs from other common approaches to conflict problems.
In addition, you can click on any highlighted word to see a short definition of that word.
Click here to go to a list of common conflict problems
Click here to go to a description of our theoretical approach
RESOLUTION-RESISTANT CONFLICTS
Constructive Confrontation: A New Theoretical Approach
The approach we take to deal with difficult and resolution-resistant conflicts, which we call constructive confrontation, draws ideas from several fields. It draws heavily from the new fields of conflict resolution and peace research, utilizing the wisdom of practitioners as well as scholars. It also draws ideas from experts in advocacy, community organization, and nonviolent direct action. Unlike those who seek resolution for the sake of resolution, we seek justice, fairness, good decisions, and good solutions. Sometimes this means working to resolve a conflict, while sometimes it means continuing the conflict, but doing so in a more constructive way.
We make a number of theoretical assumptions which guide our approach to resolution resistant conflicts. These include several key distinctions, which are discussed below.
Fundamental Distinctions
1. Short-Term and Long-Term Conflicts
Many conflict scholars make a distinction between short-term conflicts that can be relatively easily resolved (often called "disputes"), and long-term conflicts that involve non-negotiable issues that tend to resist resolution. Typically, short-term conflicts or disputes involve interests that are negotiable. That means that it is possible to find a solution that meets each side's interests and needs--at least partially. For example, it generally is possible to find an agreeable price for a piece of merchandise. The seller may want more, the buyer may want to pay less, but they usually can agree on a price which is acceptable to both. Likewise, co-workers may disagree about who is to do what task in an office. After negotation, each may have to do something they did not want to do, but in exchange they will get enough of what they did want to settle the dispute.
Long-term conflicts, on the other hand, usually involve non-negotiable issues. They may involve deep-rooted value differences, high-stakes distributional questions, or conflicts about who dominates whom. Fundamental needs for identity, security, and recognition are often at issue as well. None of these issues are negotiable--people will not compromise fundamental values, nor will they give up their chance for a better life by submitting to continued injustice or domination, nor will they change or give up their self-identity.
While many disputes stand alone and are really settled permanently, others are part of a continuing long-term conflict. For example, each round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S.-Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan--as long as some of these were, were all short-term conflicts or "disputes" in the context of the Cold War--which was a long-term conflict. However, as that example illustrates, even the most resolution-resistant conflicts can be transformed and resolved. While the U.S. and Russia are not "best friends," their relationship is certainly much more positive now that it was during the Cold War, and expectations for a U.S.-Russian war are much more remote.
While this training program is useful for all kinds of conflicts and disputes, it is primarily designed to help people better deal with highly resolution-resistant conflicts. While we will touch lightly on techniques for resolving simpler disputes, our emphasis will be on the management, or what we call "constructive confrontation" of intractable or resolution-resistant conflicts.
Click here to see a diagram which further illustrates the relationship between conflict and disputes.
***INSERT CONFLICT/DISPUTE DIAGRAM FOR DUFOUNTAIN HERE***
This figure illustrates the relationship between an imaginary dispute between two ethnic groups in a post-colonial society named Dufountain. The two groups in this hypothetical country as the "Duists" and the "Fountists." Time runs from left to right. Each of the sets of fat arrows represents one short-term conflict, or as the chart calls it, a "dispute." In this illustration, eight disputes occur. The first two result in improved policies for the Duists (show by the solid black arrows going up toward the top of the page). The next two do not change the relative situations for either group (thus the black arrows go straight across the page). Then disputes five, six, and seven result in outcomes that are less favorable to the Duists, but more favorable to the Fountists. None of the disputes resolves the long-term, underlying conflict; the dispute settlements only alter social policies for a time in a way that favors one group more than another. Whenever the losing group believes that it has gained enough power to prevail in a later dispute, it will most likely try again to engage the opponent and force an outcome that is more favorable to them than the dispute outcome was. For this reason, dispute settlement is not the same thing as conflict resolution. One is a temporary settlement of an immediate problem; the other is a long-term settlement of an underlying long-running conflict.
While this training program is useful for all kinds of conflicts and disputes, it is primarily designed to help people better deal with highly resolution resistant conflicts. Thus, while we will touch lightly on techniques for resolving simpler disputes, our emphasis will be on the management, or what we call "constructive confrontation: of intractable or resolution-resistant conflicts.
For more information on the differences between short term disputes and long term conflicts, see Burton, 1990 and Burton and Dukes, 1990.
2. Tractable and Intractable (Resolution-Resistant) Conflicts
Conflicts can be ranked according to their ease of settlement or resolution. Simple disputes involving only two people and relatively minor issues can usually be settled very quickly. Other conflicts strongly resist resolution. These tend to be ones based on deep-rooted value differences (for example differences in religious beliefs), conflicts involving high stakes distributional questions (for example, territorial conflicts between nations) and conflicts over a person's or group's placement in the social, economic, and political hierarchy (discrimination against an ethnic group), for example.
All of these situations are characterized by a problem that cannot be resolved in a win-win way. If one value system is followed, another is threatened. If one nation controls a piece of land, another does not. If one group is dominant, another is subordinate. While sharing is possible in theory, contending sides usually see a shared solution as a loss, as they do not have total control. This is especially true in societies where natural fear and hatred is so ingrained that opposing groups cannot imagine living with or working cooperatively with the other side.
Such unavoidable win-lose outcomes, together with the high perceived importance of the issue, tends to result in very resolution-resistant conflicts. Other factors which make conflicts more difficult to resolve include numbers of people (or groups) involved, numbers of issues, the complexity of the issues, and a previous history of destructive and violent confrontation. Even relatively simple disputes, when badly handled, can escalate into very destructive and intractable conflicts. Thus effective dispute settlement and conflict management is important for all kinds of conflicts.
Although intractable conflicts resist resolution, they are not absolutely impossible to resolve. At times, intractable conflicts are transformed into disputes which can be resolved. This often occurs after a prolonged standoff when neither side can prevail, yet both are being greatly harmed by continuing the conflict. Once both sides realize this is occurring, they are often more willing to negotiate a solution than they had been before. (The end of Apartheid in South Africa is one example of a very intractable conflict that was transformed in the 1990s with the implementation of the South African National Peace Accord.)
Although this website is helpful in the management and resolution tractable conflicts, it is primarily designed to be used to help people learn more about intractable conflicts and how they can be dealt with most effectively. Often that does not mean seeking resolution, but rather managing the conflict or confronting the conflict in a constructive way. Here the emphasis is not on ending the conflict, but it carrying it out in a way that brings more benefits to the disputants than it brings costs.
For more information about the factors that make conflicts difficult to resolve, read Kreiesberg, Northrup, and Thorson, 1989 or Burton, 1990.
3. Conflict Management, Settlement, and Resolution
Just as conflict scholars often distinguish between short-term conflicts (or disputes) and long term conflicts, many also distinguish between "dispute settlement," "conflict management," and "conflict resolution." Disputes are usually settled permanently by working out a mutually-satisfactory agreement through negotiation or mediation, or by adjudication in which an expert (a judge, a jury, or an arbitrator) decides that one side was right, and the other was wrong. In both situations, the dispute is settled--that is, it is ended.
When long-term conflicts are ended, scholars say they are "resolved." By this they mean that a relatively stable solution has been found by identifying and dealing with the underlying sources of the confict. This is more difficult to do than simple "dispute settlement," because resolution means going beyond negotiating interests to meeting all sides' basic needs, and finding a way to respect their underlying values and identity. This often requires making significant socio-economic or political changes that restructure society in a more just or inclusive way.
"Conflict management" involves the control, but not resolution, of a long-term or deep-rooted conflict. This is the approach of choice when complete resolution seems to be impossible. In this case, a conflict can be managed to make it more constructive and less destructive--thus making the results of the ongoing conflict more beneficial and less damaging to all sides.
For more information on the distinction between these terms, see Burton and Dukes, 1990.
4. Core Conflict and Complicating Factors
We find it useful to distinguish between two parts of a conflict: the core conflict and the complicating factors. The core conflict involves the basic things that the conflict is about --the incompatible interests, the unmet needs, the fundamental value differences, or the struggle for justice. The complicating factors are the extra issues and problems that occur as the conflict goes on that makes dealing with the core conflict more difficult. These include problems with conflict definition (disagreements about what the conflict is really about); misunderstandings, fact-finding problems, decision making procedural problems, and escalation. Each of these complicating factors tends to intensify or obscure the core conflict, making it harder to deal with effectively. Even when the core conflict is highly resistant to resolution, by limiting (or even eliminating) most of the complicating factors it is possible to deal with the remaining conflict in a much more constructive way. For this reason, our approach focuses on defining the conflict in terms of core and complicating factors, and then considering what incremental changes can be made in each to make the conflict more constructive.
Click here to see a diagram which further illustrates the relationship between the core conflict and complicating factors.
**INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE!***
Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the core conflict and the complicating factors. The code conflict is shown in the center. Over that lie two layers of complicating factors. The first is conflict definition problems. (This is sometimes referred to as "framing" problems as people define a conflict by putting a "frame" around a particular part of it, thereby focusing on that part.) The way the disputants define it as a relatively simple difference of interests or a misunderstanding, they will probably be able to deal with it relatively easily. If they define it as a fundamental moral disagreement, or an issue of justice, or personal identity or pride, it is likely to be more difficult to resolve. Similarly, conflicts that are defined as negotiable probably will be, while conflicts that are seen to involve non-negotiable needs or values may be considerably more difficult to resolve.
The outer layer then contains four other complicating factors. These are the ones listed above: misunderstandings, fact-finding problems, procedural problems, and escalation. On the top circle, these complicating factors are unlimited--in other words, they are not being controlled. When complicating factors are allowed to build up, they can become so "thick" that they completely obscure the core conflict. In the lower circle, the complicating factors have been controlled, though they have not been eliminated. Nevertheless, the complicating factors are much less overwhelming, and it is much easier to see through them down to the core. A significant part of constructive confrontation involves methods of identifying complicating factors, and implementing techniques to limit these factors, so that attention can be better focused on the core issues.
For more information on the distinction between core and complicating, or "overlay" factors, see Burgess and Burgess, 1996.
5. Design-and-Control Systems and Complex, Natural Systems
A fifth important distinction is one between relatively simple systems that are fully understood and open to manipulation, and complex, natural systems that are only partially understood and manipulatable. Many conflict professionals see conflicts as relatively simple situations which can be completely assessed, analyzed, understood, altered, and hence, "fixed." For example, many conflict consultants engage in what is called "dispute systems design." They look at a "dispute system"--a family, a school, or a business, for instance, and learn what conflicts arise repeatedly and what causes these conflicts. They then design a new way for dealing with these problems. The new approach will either avoid the conflicts in the first place, or resolve them efficiently when they do occur.
Dispute systems design is very effective when the system under examination is relatively simple, predictable, and controllable. In these situations, the same people (or types of people) are involved in the same kinds of conflicts over and over again. In addition, the assumption is made that people can be controlled. A manager can tell employees what to do, and the assumption is made that they will do it. A parent can tell the children how the family will be run, and the assumption is made that the children will agree. This approach views conflict producing systems--families, schools, or businesses much like machines. They break, but the problems can be clearly identified and fixed.
Resolution resistant conflicts often do not fit this simple, predictable, and remediable model. They tend to be complex, and highly volatile. While one can identify most of the parties, issues, interests, and positions, these and other conflict characteristics are often changing. So too are the conflict dynamics. The end result is a system that can only be understood and dealt with bit-by-bit, not as a unified whole. Rather than trying to design a solution that will "fix" or "resolve" the entire conflict, a more effective approach is to identify particular dynamics that are causing problems and fixing those. This will not resolve the entire conflict, but it will probably make it more constructive. Therefore, unlike many conflict specialists who try to use one particular technique, for instance negotiation, mediation, or analytical problem solving, to resolve intractable conflicts, our approach seeks to identify the incremental changes that can be made in the way the conflict is being handled that may make the outcome more beneficial. Often these incremental changes can be made by one side acting alone. At other times, they require all the parties to cooperate, either on their own, or with the assistance of a third party intermediary.
Constructive Confrontation
These ideas have led us to propose a general approach for the analysis and management of resolution-resistant conflicts which we call "constructive confrontation." This term reflects the fact that most resolution-resistant conflicts cannot be resolved permanently, but rather will continue to be confronted by the parties over time. This confrontation, however, does not necd to be as destructive and counter-productive as it often is. By examining the conflict elements and dynamics, parties and intermediaries can develop a deeper understanding of the nature of the core conflict and the associated complicating factors. Efforts can then be made to limit or even eliminate the complicating factors, so that the core elements of the conflict can be addressed in the most effective way possible. The result is a much more constructive approach to the continuing conflict which can lead to individual and group empowerment, mutual recognition of all of the parties' views and development of a process for dealing with specific disputes within the long-running conflict which is perceived to be fair and effective.
Constructive confrontation is also different from many other approaches to resolution-resistant conflict because it can be used by the parties themselves without outside assistance, or even by one of the parties acting alone. More progress can be made, to be sure, if both parties take this approach to a conflict, but since the approach is incremental, a change on one side can also have a significant effect, and may actually prompt a change on the part of the other people or group(s). We often point out that conflict is something people do themselves all the time. Few people wait for a mediator to figure out how to handle their conflicts. They do not have the time; nor, often, do they have the money if outside professionals must be brought in. People in conflict must learn how to handle their conflicts effectively on their own. Constructive confrontation is an approach which is designed to be used by people who want to understand their own situations better, and develop approaches to those situations that will work effectively, even if they do not have a mediator or other intermediary to help them.
The Role of Power in Constructive Confrontation
Many conflict resolution specialists try to resolve conflicts with negotiation, mediaiton, or other consensus-based techniques which they see as an alternative to power or force-based approaches to resolution. Often it is said that in mediation, the parties "leave power at the door." We believe that this is a misconception. Mediation is one of many alternative approaches to conflict--all of which involve power in one or more forms. Parties involved in mediation do no "leave their power at the door", rather, they bring it to the table and try to use it to influence the mediated outcome. For this reason, an understanding of what power is, how it is obtained, and how it can be used is of great importance.
What power is
[WRITE]
Sources of power
[WRITE]
How power can be used
[WRITE]
Power balancing
[WRITE]
Using Constructive Confrontation
Constructive Confrontation involves four steps: 1) conflict assessment; 2)solution identification and selection; 3) implementation, and 4) solution evaluation and revision
1) Conflict Assessment
Conflict assessment involves the identification of what the conflict is about, who is involved, why they are involved, and what complicating factors are making the situation especially difficult to deal with effectively.
People who routinely deal with conflicts--lawyers, mediators, and diplomats, for instance, always do a conflict assessment before they decide how to approach a problem. They try to understand as much as they can about what is going on and who is involved so that they can plan and then carry out an appropriate response.
People who are involved in a conflict themselves often overlook the importance of doing a conflict assessment. They assume that they know what is going on, who is involved and why, and what they should do about it. When conflicts are simple--when they involve only two people and one or two issues, for example--a conflict assessment may not be important.
But when conflicts are complex --involving many people, many issues, perhaps having a long history and strong emotions, it is very helpful to conduct a conflict assessment before deciding how to respond. If you are being helped by a conflict professional (a lawyer or mediator, for instance) they can help you do the conflict assessment, or may do it for you. If you are acting on your own, however, you should do your own conflict assessment before making choices about appropriate ways to address specific opponents or issues, or how to handle the conflict over the long term.
HOW TO DO A CONFLICT ASSESSMENT: Many conflict assessment guides are available. Most often, they consist of lists of questions to answer or things to consider before dealing with a conflict. Although the lists differ in details, most contain many similar elements. These include questions about who is involved, what they want (or need) that they do not have, and how they are trying to get their needs or desires met.
This website is, in itself, a detailed conflict assessment tool. By working through the website and answering the questions it asks, you will get a detailed understanding of the conflicts you are involved in, including the nature of the core conflict and the complicating factors or problems that are making the conflict more difficult to handle. Once you understand this you can move on to the identification and selection of solutions for particular problems. If you want a shorter, simpler conflict assessment tool, several are available. (See below.)
Click here for a list of books with conflict assessment tools.
Click here to jump ahead to the conflict assessment portion of this website.
2. Identification and Selection of Solutions to Problems
After the conflict assessment is completed, disputants (and third parties) should have a better understanding of the problems they are facing. If the conflict appears to be negotiable, and if the parties are ready to sit down and negotiate, settlement is usually relatively simple to obtain.
In long-lasting, intense, and complex conflicts, however, obtaining even a short-term settlement can be very difficult. Often, the best that can be done is to deal with individual problems within the context of the larger conflict. For instance, if misunderstandings are a problem, efforts can be made to improve communication between the parties. If procedural issues are in dispute, procedures can be changed to make them more open and fair. While incremental solutions to particular problems will not fairly resolve the conflict, they can make it more manageable and more constructive. They will help limit the complicating factors, allowing the parties to focus more of their attention on the core aspects of the conflict and do so in a way that is more likely to advance their interests than they could when complicating factors distorted the situation.
3. Implementation of Solutions
The third step in constructive confrontation is the implementation of the solutions chosen in step two to limit complicating factors and to increase the effectiveness of the confrontation over the core issues. Since resolution-resistant conflicts are usually complex and involve a number of different complicating factors, a choice must be made about timing of the solution steps. One problem can be taken at a time, or several can be dealt with at once. The optimal approach will be different in each case. For this reason parties must look at the security of the problems and the availability of solutions to make a judgment about what to do when.
4. Evaluation and revision
Resolution-resistant conflicts are often so complex that it is impossible to predict what the outcome of any particular action might be. Solutions that are expected remedy a problem may do so, or they might not. They also might create unexpected problems in other areas. For this reason, it is critical that parties carefully evaluate the results of all of their actions, and revise their conflict strategies as needed in an effort to make the confrontation as constructive as possible.
[Click here] for a conflict assessment questionnaire and problem list based on the constructive confrontation approach.
[click here] for a list of "solutions" to particular problems
The section that follows lists common conflict problems with a short description of each. Below each problem are several options. You may 1) ask to see a more detailed description of the problem; 2) ask to see some examples of the problem in actual situations; 3) ask to read about possible solutions to this problem, or 4) ask to read about closely related problems. You will get a similar list of choices if you go to the solution list for a particular problem. In this case you will see a list of possible solutions to the problem you were interested in with a two sentence description of each. You may then 1) ask to see a more detailed description of one (or more) of these solutions; 2) ask to read about how this solution has been implemented in an actual conflict situation; 3) see a list of other problems that this solution helps deal with.
There are many ways to use this resource. You may skip around from link to link reading only those topics that are of direct interest to you or relevance to your immediate situation. This enables you to "customize" the information you receive to match your specific situation. Or you may go straight through, reading most or all of the information on all of the entries. While this takes much longer, it gives a much better overview of the nature of intractable conflicts in general and how they can be approached in more constructive ways.
To simplify programing, it is necessary to go back to the main problem list to move from one option to another--for example if you want to read more information about a problem and then see some examples of the problem and then read about solutions, you need to use the "go back" arrow on your browser to go back to the problem list to click on the next item you wish to read.
The problems in this problem list are divided into four parts. These are shown in Figure 4. The first part involves problem definition--defining what the conflict is about (framing), who is involved, and what the context of the conflict is (scoping). Without an accurate understanding of the people and/or issues involved and how the conflict relates to other situations (past and present) it is very hard to confront any conflict in an effective way.
The second part involves confrontation strategies. People involved in conflicts can do one of two things. They can withdraw from the conflict, or they can confront it in some way. When they confront it, they are trying to influence the situation in a way which will benefit themselves. They may do so in a variety of ways--they may use force, they may try to negotiate, or they may try to persuade the opponent to change his or her attitudes and/or behavior. This looks at problems that arise regarding how the conflict is being confronted.
The third part looks at complicating factors that often make conflicts worse than they really should be and make them difficult to handle constructively, even if one takes care of all of the problems discussed earlier. Typical complicating factors include communication problems, fact-finding problems, and escalation.
The fourth part looks at procedural problems. *Need description here