IMPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY FOR UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT

Kurt Lewin, a famous psychologist, used to tell his students, of whom I was one, that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.” To this point, I have pre­sented the basic ideas of a good theory; in what follows, I indicate their use­fulness in conflict situations.

The Importance of a Cooperative Orientation

The most important implication of cooperation-competition theory is that a cooperative or win-win orientation to resolving a conflict enormously facilitates constructive resolution, while a competitive or win-lose orientation hinders it. It is easier to develop and maintain a win-win attitude if you have social sup­port for it. The social support can come from friends, coworkers, employers, the media, or your community.

To have a win-win attitude in a hostile environment, it is valuable to become part of a network of people or a member of groups with similar orientations that can extend social support to you. It is also helpful to develop the personal strengths and skills that are useful in bucking the tide.

If you are the manager in a system (for example, a principal in a school, a CEO in a company, a parent in a family), it is worthwhile to recognize that basic change in the system involves more than educating students, employees, or children to have a win-win orientation. It also involves educating yourself and other key people in the system such as supervisors, staff, teachers, and parents so that their actions reflect and support a win-win orientation. Additionally, it often requires fundamental change in the incentive structure so that the rewards, salaries, grades, perks, etc., in the system do not foster a win-lose rela­tionship among the people in it.

Reframing

The second most important implication of the theory has to do with the coop­erative process that is involved in constructive conflict resolution.

Thus, consider the school that is developing site-based management (SBM) procedures but faces a conflict (the second opening vignette of the Introduc­tion). One group of teachers, mainly White, insists on having teachers elected to the SBM executive committee from the various academic departments by majority vote. Another group of teachers, the Black Teachers Caucus (BTC), demands that several members of the committee be from minority groups to represent their interests. This conflict can be reformulated as a joint problem: how to develop SBM procedures that empower and are responsive to the inter­ests and needs of faculty, parents, and students from minority groups without abandoning the regular democratic procedures whereby teachers are elected to the SBM committee by their respective departments.

This joint problem is not easy to solve, but similar problems have been faced and resolved in many organizations. There is reason to believe that if the con­flicting groups—the SBM committee members elected by their departments and the BTC—define the conflict as a joint problem to be resolved cooperatively, they can come up with a solution that is mutually satisfactory.

The Norms of Cooperation

Of course, the parties are more apt to succeed in reframing their conflict into a mutual problem if the participants abide by the norms of cooperative behavior, even when in conflict, and have the skills that facilitate effective cooperation. The norms of cooperative behavior basically are similar to those for respectful, respon­sible, honest, empowering, and caring behavior toward friends or fellow group members. Some of these norms, particularly relevant to conflict, are the following:

• Place the disagreements in perspective by identifying common ground and common interests.

• When there is disagreement, address the issues and refrain from making personal attacks.

• When there is disagreement, seek to understand the other’s views from his or her perspective; try to feel what it would be like if you were on the other’s side.

• Build on the ideas of the other, fully acknowledging their value.

• Emphasize the positive in the other and the possibilities of constructive resolution of the conflict. Limit and control expression of your negative feelings so that they are primarily directed at the other’s violation of cooperative norms (if that occurs) or at the other’s defeatism.

• Take responsibility for the harmful consequences—unwitting as well as intended—of what you do and say; seek to undo the harm as well as openly accept responsibility and make sincere apology for it.

• If the other harms you, be willing to forgive if the other accepts respon­sibility for doing so, sincerely apologizes, and is willing to try to undo it; seek reconciliation rather than nurturing an injury or grudge.

• Be responsive to the other’s legitimate needs.

• Empower the other to contribute effectively to the cooperative effort; solicit the other’s views, listen responsively, share information, and oth­erwise help the other—when necessary—to be an active, effective par­ticipant in the cooperative problem-solving process.

• Be appropriately honest.

• Throughout conflict, remain a moral person—therefore, a person who is caring and just—and consider the other as a member of one’s moral community—therefore, as a person who is entitled to care and justice.

In the heat of conflict, there is often a tendency to violate the norms of coop­eration. For example, you begin to attack the other as a person (“you’re stub­born,” “you’re selfish,” “you’re unreasonable,” “you’re inconsiderate,” “you’re narcissistic,” “you’re paranoid”). Recognize when you start to do this, stop, apologize, and explain what made you angry enough to want to belittle and hurt the other. If the other starts to do this to you, then interrupt, explain why you are interrupting, and try to resume a mutually respectful dialogue. (“You’re call­ing me names; that’s making me angry and makes me want to retaliate, so pretty soon we’ll be in a name-calling contest and that will get us nowhere. Let’s stick to the issues and be respectful of one another. If you’re angry with me, tell me why. If I’m at fault, I’ll remedy it.”)

It is wise to recognize that you, as well as the other, have hot buttons that, if pressed, are likely to evoke strong emotions.

The Values Underlying Constructive Conflict Resolution

The norms of cooperation and constructive conflict resolution reflect some basic values, to which people who are “profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines” can adhere (Rawls, 1996, p. xxxix). A rea­sonable doctrine includes conceptions of the values and norms with regard to conflict that people who adhere to another reasonable doctrine (as well as those who adhere to one’s own) can endorse and be expected to follow during con­flict. Thus, pro-life and pro-choice advocates in the abortion conflict may have profoundly differing views, but they are both components of reasonable doc­trines if the adherents to each are willing to follow common values in dealing with their conflict about abortion. Among such values are reciprocity, human equality, shared community, fallibility, and nonviolence. A brief discussion of these interrelated values follows.

Reciprocity. This is the value involved in the maxim “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” My understanding of the maxim as it applies to conflict requires each party to treat the other with the fairness that it would normatively expect if in the other’s position. It assumes reciprocity from the other—fairness to and from the other. The fairness in behavior, in process, and in outcomes expected is normative. As defined by one’s culture, it is how the conflicting parties should or should not behave toward one another if they are, at a minimum, to avoid a destructive conflict or, more positively, to promote constructive management of their conflict.

Human Equality. This value implies that all human beings are equally entitled to just and respectful treatment, with consideration for their needs, and enti­tled to such basic liberties as freedom of conscience, thought, and expression, as well as freedom from coercion. You are entitled to this from the other, but the other is entitled to this from you too. Human equality does not imply that people necessarily have the same status, privileges, power, needs, or wealth. It does imply that such differences are not the consequence of one’s violation of the other’s entitlements.

Shared Community. Implicit in constructive conflict resolution is mutual recog­nition of being part of a broader community that members wish to preserve, a community sharing some key values and norms; such recognition occurs despite important differences between oneself and the other.

Fallibility. The sources of disagreement between reasonable people are mani­fold. Disagreements may arise from such sources as the nature of the evidence, the weight to be given to types of evidence, and the vagueness of the moral or other concepts involved, as well as from differences in basic values or world­views. Reasonable people understand that their own judgment as well as the judgment of others may be fallible.

Nonviolence. This value implies that coercive tactics are not employed by you or the other to obtain agreement or consent. Such tactics include physical or psychological violence (for example, humiliation), destruction of property or other valued goods, harm to one’s life chances (a potential career), harm to one’s loved ones, and so on.