Practioners and theorists have developed dozens of theories and methods for understanding and managing conflicts.

Every method works some of the time; no method works all of the time. Some work in concert with one another; some are incompatible. Some apply to many levels of conflict, some only to specific situations.

Bartos and Wehr (2002) suggest “balanced sociation” to make cooperation and conflict prominent in public consciousness, formal education, and public investment. They include in this the study of nonviolent social movements, mediation, ritualized conflict through sport, training in non-injurious defense, and civil disobedience. They do not discuss possible unintended consequences of such a program, which could be disastrous in an aggressive and competitive world.

Precautionary and preparatory methods often take some form of conflict mapping (Bartos & Wehr 2002). They continue by identifying possible causes and consequences, which can help with prevention as well as preparation. They move on to identify the interests of the parties and thus their probable goals including long-term relationships (the dual variable models are useful here). Once understood, these lead to an analysis of the possible dynamics of a conflict, including triggers, the probability of escalation, and intractability or polarization. Finally, mapping identifies positive payoffs for the parties as a guide to possible solutions. An alternative formulation is policy analysis, which considers Conditions, Issues, Goals, possible Actions, and probable Results of each action including intended and unintended consequences, which gives the acronym CIGAR, making it a little easier to remember the components.

Consultation can prevent conflict by helping groups distinguish actual from illusory goal incompatibility. Bartos and Wehr warn that those in authority or power often ignore or forget the need for consultation, and hierarchical organization can impede it, often producing misunderstanding and resentment.

Arbitration, negotiation, and mediation are the most general methods for managing conflicts that do not rely on force (Chapter 17). They are fully developed and widely used across a wide range of conflicts from intrapersonal to international. All three can benefit from forms of analysis suggested in these pages to develop proposals. In disputes over division of tangible property, adjusted winner, proportional allocation, imaginary auction, and the Steinhaus procedure are useful. Expected utility and stability analysis require special skills in mathematics and computer programming, but are powerful, applicable at many levels of conflict, and are not limited to disputes over division of property. Efforts to identify probable unintended consequences seem worthwhile in almost all disputes. The likelihood of these methods succeeding improves with preliminary training that prepares negotiators to solve problems cooperatively. Exercises that help opponents view the conflict through the eyes of opponents (Kelman 1982; Mitchell & Banks 1976) and that improve active listening skills also have proved helpful.

Beyond these general methods for managing conflicts are others largely limited to specific levels of conflict. At the individual level, these include techniques such as stress and anger management, counseling and therapies in all their overwhelming variety, and (threat of) punishment. Victim-offender mediation is a means of restitution in individual cases, but is unlikely to help in cases involving large numbers of people such as class actions. The tort system, despite abuses and the need for reform, plays an important role in many cases and helps establish precedents that have their own effects.

Corporations and non-profit organizations generally have some form of board of directors who set broad policies, keep an eye on finances, and make major personnel appointments. They and their subordinates resolve or supervise the day-to-day conflicts that can take up as much as 25% of a manager’ time.¹ Sales negotiations are a major element in corporate life. The possibility of a strike always is an element of labor negotiations. The dangers lie in unintended consequences and individuals or groups who do not accept the decision and are in position to sabotage it.

At the community level and above, governmental bodies tend to manage disputes,² but procedures vary by type of government. In the United States, we are accustomed to elected city councils, county commissioners, and state and federal legislatures. Legislative bodies resolve policy disputes and establish procedures, often with input that can range from informal conversations through backroom bargaining and lobbying to “horse trading.” After all the maneuvering, voting is the most common means of formalizing decisions, but there are many systems for voting, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Legitimate attempts to influence legislatures take many forms, including lobbying, selective reporting and editorializing in the media, letters to editors some of which can be part of an organized campaign, and protests that can be peaceful or violent. Gandhi’s disciplined nonviolent resistance is widely admired, but it sometimes turned violent and succeeded in no small part because the English already had decided to terminate the colonial relationship and had sent Lord Mountbatten to India to do so within three years. In other words, Indian independence would have come about with or without Gandhi. He might not have done so well against Hitler, Ho, Mao, or Stalin. Tiananmen Square failed in achieving its political goals.

Similarly, the 1960s was a decade of protests in the US, primarily over civil rights and the war in Vietnam. Just how much these changed anything is a matter of debate and a worthwhile topic for research now that the passions have died down somewhat and the records are accessible. In the first case, the country already had been moving away from segregation and related practices since World War II, and Lyndon Johnson made civil rights a priority for his presidency from its beginning. On the other hand, the protests against the Vietnamese war certainly had political impact.

When everything fails and civil war does break out, traditional and asymmetric military strategy and tactics come into play depending on whether the rebellion takes the form of guerrilla, terror, or traditional warfare. Sometimes such wars are fought to a conclusion, sometimes they result in mediated or negotiated peace, and sometimes they result in international intervention and peacekeeping followed by efforts at reconciliation and restitution that may or may not succeed. Most recently, this has been the case in the Middle East with the “Arab Spring” that led to the overthrow (listed roughly from least to most violent) of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Saleh in Yemen, and Gaddafi in Libya, with Assad in Syria fighting to survive as this is written.

Diplomacy—negotiations carried out by recognized representatives of recognized governments—is a major tool for resolving international disputes. Disputants, allies, and international bodies may try coercive means such as sanctions or beneficial ones such as trade agreements to encourage resolution by changing the payoffs (Bartos & Wehr 2002). Third parties may offer to mediate and in protracted disputes informal efforts such as Citizen Diplomacy may emerge to create a more positive climate. Just how much impact the latter has is a topic worthy of debate and research.

When diplomacy and coercive methods such as sanctions fail, countries may resort to war in one of its many forms.

Once reached, settlements must be implemented. Alimony must be paid, goods must be delivered, strikers must go back to work, sanctions lifted, and enemies reconciled. The more intense the conflict was, the longer it can take for real resolution—as the US Civil War illustrates. Goffman (1967) suggests “interaction rituals” to erase continuing antagonism. These occur when former opponents come together with a common focus. While they can begin during disputes as part of citizen diplomacy, they are vital after concluding agreements. Bonding rituals, confidence building measures, and quick impact projects have proven themselves in many conflicts. Maynard (2000) provides a comprehensive, five-step model for reconciliation developed from practical experience after the wars in former Yugoslavia (Chapter 16).

Human experience has evolved practical methods for managing conflict of varying generality and consequences, but they remain as much art as science. Some methods prevent or prepare for conflict; some methods escalate and some de-escalate it and leaders may intentionally choose or blunder into one or the other. Events can build on themselves and spin out of control. Parties can view resolutions as fair and reasonable and work to make them succeed, or see them as unfairly imposed by force that can become the seeds of future conflict. It is not enough merely to reach agreement on how to resolve a conflict. Faithful implementation is required to avoid future conflict.