Working Well with Conflict - Introductory Article (Part 2)

This is the second Part of an Introductory article to the ‘Working Well with Conflict’ series. In the first Part (which you can find here) I set out some definitions relating to conflict. Now I want to say a little about conflict dynamics and conflict causes, describe a model on why conflict might arise and share my thoughts on what people who are in conflict might be seeking.

Introduction

I think it important to be clear at this point in the article that conflict can be positive, although it is often viewed negatively. Morton Deutsch (writing in his book The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes) considered that conflict can be constructive or destructive, with conflict having destructive consequences if its participants are dissatisfied with the outcomes and they feel they have lost as a result of the conflict. He says that conflict has productive consequences if the participants are satisfied with the outcomes and feel they have gained as a result of the conflict.

Deutsch also observed that conflict cannot be always avoided and that conflict is not always something bad, as it can prevent stagnation, stimulate interest and curiosity, be the medium through which problems can be aired and solutions arrived at and it is the root of personal and social change. The most important thing is how the conflict is to be resolved, so much depends on how a conflict is approached and experienced.

Conflict dynamics

A conflict continuum is a model or concept which researchers have used when modelling conflict on a continuum from low to high intensity. It refers to the idea that conflict is not a singular static event, but rather a dynamic, ongoing process that evolves over time. A conflict continuum represents a spectrum along which conflicts can range from low-level disputes and tensions to high-intensity violence, such as full-scale war. The concept of a conflict continuum can be used to help understand how conflicts develop, escalate, de-escalate and potentially resolve or transform. It allows for an understanding of conflict dynamics, emphasising that conflicts are fluid and can shift in intensity, requiring diverse approaches at each stage.

One example of a conflict continuum has been articulated by Andra Medea, a theorist who writes on issues of conflict and violence, specifically crisis prevention. She seeks to explain how individuals, small groups, organisations, families, ethnicities and even whole nations function when disputes arise between them. Her conflict continuum theorises four levels of types of conflict, all characterised by specific rules, behaviours and likely outcomes. These four are: Problem Solving, Domination, Blind Behaviour and Rogue Messiah. Each level (from first to fourth) is characterised by increasing degrees of separation from reality, and decreasing degrees of maturity (in this context, defined as the ability to control anger and settle differences without violence or destruction).

Another example comes from Elise M. Boulding, a Quaker sociologist who, when examining how war becomes peace, posited a continuum between wars of extermination and transformation. In an Occasional Paper on The Dialectics and Economics of Peace (1990) she explains that “An important concept for me is the conflict management continuum; one end represents destruction of the other. The continuum shades from threat through arbitration, mediation, negotiation to integrative processes that bond us to each other. In a profound sense, where on that continuum our own conflict management behavior lies is a matter of day-by-day choice.”

In my teachings about conflict I have often used Dr Friedrich Glasl’s nine-stage model of conflict escalation to explain how the participants in a conflict can behave. This model portrays conflict escalation as being a negative downward spiral as conflict participants become drawn into the dynamics of a conflict. The nine stages in this model (ranging from “Tension” to “Together into the abyss”) are grouped into three levels, each of which contain three stages. In the first stages both participants can still win. In the second stages, one of the participants loses and the other wins. And in the third stages both participants lose.

What Glasl (and more recent authors) propose is that as the level of conflict escalation increases, any intervening third party has to become more forceful in the form of intervention, because the potential for self-help of the involved participants decreases. So different types of intervention by different third parties might be appropriate at different stages in a conflict (and I will write more about this in Part 3 of this Introductory article). You can find a diagram of Glasl’s model and a description of the levels in each stage in this October 2024 ‘The Conversation’ article Israel-Iran and the nine stages of how conflicts can escalate and get out of?control by Matthew Powell.

Conflict causes

Another conflict practitioner who I often referenced when delivering training and courses on conflict is Dr Christopher Moore, a mediator who has written a book called The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (2014). In this book, he emphasises that understanding the underlying cause of a conflict is critical for successful conflict resolution. Moore explains that most conflicts have multiple causes and considers that the causes of conflict centre in one or more of the five arenas (often referred to as the ‘Circle of Conflict’). These five conflict causes are:

1. Data Conflicts, which arise from a lack of information, misinformation or different interpretations of available data. People might disagree on what information is relevant, how to interpret it or how to assess it.

2. Interest Conflicts which occur when individuals or groups have competing needs, desires or goals. These can be tangible like competing for resources, or intangible like seeking recognition or respect.

3. Structural Conflicts which arise from external forces or circumstances beyond the control of the people involved. Structural conflicts can be caused by unequal power, authority, resources, time constraints or geographical limitations. These structural inequalities in society - such as racism, sexism, or classism - can create systemic disadvantages for certain groups, leading to social unrest and conflict.

4. Value Conflicts which stem from deeply held beliefs or principles, such as cultural, religious or ideological differences. These types of conflicts are particularly difficult to resolve as people may be unwilling to compromise their core values.

5. Relationship Conflicts which emerge from personal interactions and are often fuelled by emotions such as anger, mistrust or resentment. Poor communication, stereotypes, or negative past experiences between individuals can also lead to relationship conflicts.

Christopher Moore considers that identifying the type of conflict, whether it's based on data (lack of information or misinformation), interests (differences in needs or desires), values (clashing beliefs or ideologies), structure (imbalances in power or resources) or relationships (miscommunication or negative emotions), or a combination of these, can help disputing parties better understand the root causes and work toward resolution in a more structured way.

Moore's conflict model has been criticised for oversimplifying the causes of conflict and compartmentalising complex human interactions into discrete categories, whereas real-life conflicts are often multidimensional with overlapping causes. Also, that his model doesn’t sufficiently address the complexity of power imbalances, as power dynamics can permeate all types of conflicts, not just structural ones. His model has been critiqued as reflecting a Western, individualistic perspective on conflict resolution, as the focus on interests, values and data can be seen as privileging rational discourse, which may not resonate in all cultural contexts. However, I think that it is still valuable tool and a helpful starter for understanding the different dimensions of conflict.

The ‘Iceberg Model’

I think it may be useful in this Introductory article to reference the ‘Iceberg Model’. I have found it helpful to refer this in my teachings, as it aims to provide a visual understanding of why conflicts arise and is often referred to in writings about negotiation and mediation. What the model suggests is, that similar to most of an iceberg being below the surface (with what is visible being the ‘tip of the iceberg’), when approaching a conflict you may only be seeing a small (visible) part of a larger unseen issue.

The ‘Iceberg Model’ suggests that what is visible in conflict situations are the ‘positions’ of the people involved in the conflict, with their position being their stance, demand or preferred course of action. So a position is what the person(s) is explicitly saying they want – it is what they are asking for – which is often expressed in terms of a closed demand or binary choice that is to be accepted or rejected. What a person wants is often quantified and can be quite specific. My experience has been that people in a conflict position often express a strong sense of grievance, attach that grievance to a person, think their solution is the only one, collect evidence to prove they are right and the other is wrong, seek allies, ignore common ground and want to win at the expense of the other.

Below the water surface – and forming the rest of the iceberg/conflict – are ‘interests’ and ‘needs’. Interests are the hidden reasons, desires and motivations that underly the stated positions. They are the broader concerns or goals that explain why someone has taken a particular position. Interests are tangible in that they can be traded, negotiated or compromised. They are often more flexible and can lead to creative problem-solving, as they allow room for compromise and alternative solutions. Conflicts often arise when personal or group interests (such as security, rights, status, or resources) are threatened.

Needs are more fundamental and can be considered as the life experiences, prejudices, emotions, values and fears of the individual. In their totality, they form the person’s subjective experience of the world. Needs are not for trading - they are fundamental human requirements that must be met in order for a person to feel secure, respected or fulfilled. Identifying and addressing needs is crucial because they tend to be non-negotiable and deeply important to the individual (or group). Many conflicts stem from a clash of values. People may want their values to be upheld, or at least acknowledged, in the resolution process.

As seen earlier, conflicts can be viewed as dynamic systems which evolve over time. A common pattern is for a conflict to broaden (by which I mean new issues are brought in), widen (new participants can be introduced) and intensify. Dr Dan Dana (2001) writes about conflict as being “rooted in all parts of our human nature” and describes the ‘retaliatory cycle of conflict’. Here, a triggering event leads to a person perceiving that their interests are threatened (cognition or thinking), which leads to anger (emotion or feeling), which leads to ‘acting out’ (behaviour or doing), which serves as a triggering event for the other person and the perception that his or her interests are threatened. So the other person retaliates with a response which the initial ‘offender’ perceives as being hostile – and so the conflict escalates.

It has been my experience that when conflict arises, the participants often lock into their positions, so creating a stalemate. However, moving beyond positions and exploring interests and needs, can lead to a better understand the root causes of the conflict and identify solutions that meet the core concerns of all participants involved. So focusing on interests rather than rigid positions helps in finding solutions that can also satisfy the underlying needs of all involved (I will write more about this in a later article in the series).

What do people who are in conflict want?

Before moving on to look - in Part 3 of this Introductory article - at the different processes by which conflict can be addressed (and hopefully resolved), I want to first set out my thoughts on what people who are in conflict are seeking. And my view is that you can think about this in terms of emotional, psychological and practical wants.

My learning from working with conflict over the years is that people in conflict want a solution that they perceive as fair, whether it's about rights, resources or how they are treated. In some situations, individuals seek compensation for harm done, which might be financial, emotional or social. This can include apologies, policy changes or other forms of reparation. People often want the other persons to take responsibility for their actions, whether it is an individual or an organisation. And the desire for an apology often relates to the need for an admission of wrongdoing or harm caused and to hearing an expression of remorse. Related to this, they may want an apology to be made public. In some situations of hurt or betrayal, people might seek retribution - to punish the other party as a way to get ‘even’ or to make them suffer consequences for their actions.

My experience has been that people often feel disempowered in conflict situations, so they may seek to regain a sense of control or influence over the situation or the outcome. And I know that people want to be treated with respect, regardless of the disagreement. When people feel disrespected, dismissed or belittled, conflict can escalate. People also want to be treated fairly, in line with what they perceive as appropriate behaviour or justice in the situation. They often want their feelings, experiences and perspectives to be acknowledged and want to know that their concerns are being heard and understood, even if the other party disagrees. They may also want the other party to acknowledge the real-world impact of their actions, whether it’s emotional, financial or relational harm. And if trust has been broken, people often seek actions or assurances to rebuild that trust.

Overall, in conflict situations, my thoughts are that people seek a mix of emotional satisfaction (such as feeling heard or respected), practical outcomes (such as a fair resolution or compensation) and psychological ‘peace’ (which includes regaining control or rebuilding trust). And that working well with conflict depends on addressing the underlying needs and interests of the individuals involved, rather than just satisfying the surface-level disagreements.

Returning to the concept of justice, my thoughts are that achieving justice can sometimes require a compromise or a balancing act, especially when conflicting rights or interests are involved. So justice, for me, does not always mean a strict, literal application of the truth, as consideration may be given to various factors, such as mitigating circumstances and the impact of a decision. And in relation to conflict, I would suggest that a ‘just settlement’ is about achieving a fair resolution that satisfies legal and ethical standards, while also addressing the interests and needs of all participants.

References

Boulding, E. and Boulding, K.E., 1990. The Dialectics and Economics of Peace.

Dana, D. 2001. Conflict Resolution: Mediation Tools for Everyday Worklife. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Deutsch, M. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Moore, C.W., 2014. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.