Dual Variable Models

Park and Burgess (1921) defined accommodation, assimilation, competition, and conflict as the only possible relationships between two or more people. They saw competition as the most “elementary and fundamental,” evolving with conflict toward accommodation and assimilation.

Several theorists developed models based on two variables (Figure 7.2) that they claimed were sufficient to predict which of four or five strategies people use in conflicts (Figure 7.3).

Three of the strategies are self-explanatory. The terms “win-win” and “win-lose” have become common in describing the remaining two. “Win-win” implies that the parties will take a mutually beneficial, problem-solving approach on the assumption that creativity can enlarge the “pie” they are attempting to divide to meet the needs of both parties. “Win-lose” implies a competitive approach assuming a pie of fixed size and a dispute in which each party tries to get the biggest slice possible.

A person with high concern for the outcome and little for the other person (the stereotypical car salesman?) will take a “win-lose” approach. Individuals with a high stake in the issues and the relationship (a couple planning a honey-moon?) will want a solution both accept enthusiastically, so tend toward “win-win” tactics.

That is, despite personal preferences, no one strategy fits every circumstance. A competitive or assertive strategy is appropriate when important principles are at state, rapid, decisive or unpopular actions are needed, or opponents are exploitative. Compromise is useful when consensus is unlikely, parties are of equal power (see below), and tensions are high. A collaborative strategy is more suitable if time is available to work things out, the issues are complex and important so that it is important to consider a variety of perspectives, and commitment and full cooperation from all will be necessary to implement decisions. Avoiding conflicts may be best if others can resolve matters, delay is possible, the issues are trivial, a cooling off period will reduce tensions, or one’s own position is likely to improve with time. Accommodating the wishes of others may be best if the issues are important to opponents but not yourself, maintaining the relationship is important, your position is weak, and concessions can obligate opponents. Do not confuse these strategies with personality. For example, some highly competitive individuals are highly abrasive, some gently persuasive, some charismatic, and some even rely on pity to get their way.

In another variation of the dual variable model, (Figure 7.4), Ellison (2000) developed a model that rests on the dubious idea that questions are by nature adversarial and that “traditional” communication is destructive, defensive, and confrontational. In also asserting that pursuit of power always is evil, she contradicts her assumption that people always are interested in good relations. She claims “non-defensive” communication eliminates “sources of conflict” she sees in accountability, clarity, compassion, flexibility, productivity, profitability, and sincerity.

In using one of the several forms of Dual Variable Model, one cannot assume people in conflict assess the issues or their opponent in the same way. One person may be more concerned with the relationship than the other. In a multi-issue negotiation, the relative importance of each issue may or may not be the same to each party. The model may help explain each party’s strategy on a particular issue with respect to a particular opponent, but you cannot assume that all parties will be following the same strategy at the same time.

There is a tendency among theorists to assume the superiority of the win-win over the win-lose strategy, perhaps simply because they would like the world to be nicer than it really is. They use terms for the former like “collaborative,” “integrative,” “principled,” “problem-solving,” or “synergistic” that have a positive tone and imply practical and moral superiority over a win-lose strategy, often labeled “competing,” “contending,” or “dominating.” Theorists often assert that the former produces more creative, longer lasting agreements, while claiming the latter tends to result in last minute, low-level compromise or a deadlock. The indictment seems overdrawn if for no other reason than most of the world’s negotiating is win-lose and has been for 5000 or so years. It is possible to become so concerned with the opponent’s feelings that one sacrifices one’s own goals (Gilin & Mestdagh, 2004). Learning only win-win tactics is like training a football team on offense but not defense—disastrous. Its proponents tend to make concessions in hope of inducing cooperation from tough opponents, who as recent history with Iran, North Korea, Russia and others provide ample evidence, are likely to simply pocket each concession and ask for more until they encounter resistance, then to finally begin negotiating.

Dual Variable Models pass many of the tests of good theory. They are parsimonious, requiring only two variables to predict behavior. They apply to many levels of conflict. They are logical and empirical despite practical difficulties in reliably measuring disputants’ concerns with reasonable validity across many types of conflicts. They seem adaptable to situations in which disputants have different levels of concern for one another or from one issue to another.