My Way or the Highway

Conflict has been a part of life since the Adam and Eve decided to things their way in Garden of Eden. There are several different ways we can handle conflict when it arises. We can solve problems in three basic ways, by force, talking, or being passive. By far the most preferred method, in my opinion, is to talk things out when trying to resolve conflicts.

Resolving conflict in a way that creates a win-win situation requires us to recognize there can be more than one way to solve a problem. Often people will buy into a “one solution” mindset. They believe that there is only one way to solve any conflict. This can take the form of focusing on their own position too much, and trying to power their solution through, or they take a passive approach, and give in to the other person without question. Either way, when people focus on only one way to solve a problem, they miss a whole range of possible answers.

Communication is the key to effectively resolving conflict. Once a conflict arises there are some steps to take that will help foster a win-win solution. First, the parties can negotiate, or use bargaining techniques, to reach a mutually agreeable solution. This is usually the fastest, less time consuming, and more flexible way to handle conflict. Because it is voluntary, both parties usually end up retaining something they want, and therefore, it is a good way to arrive at a win-win situation. The downside is that sometimes the stronger or more knowledgeable party can get an unfair advantage. If negotiation fails, the parties can then turn to mediation. Mediation is basically adding a third party to the negotiation. The difference is the role of the third party. Their role is to facilitate communication between the conflicting parties, and bring them to a clearer understanding of the big picture as well as the details. The third party will help the conflicting parties explore options for resolution, and hopefully arrive at a win-win point. The killer of mediation is dead-lock. This would necessitate moving into arbitration. When the conflicting parties have dead-locked, arbitration is the next logical step. Arbitration is the use of an outside party, hopefully non-biased, who will hear the arguments of both conflicting parties, and reach a solution that both parties have agreed, before hand, in which to abide. The up side of arbitration as opposed to negotiation and mediation is that it always comes to a resolution for the conflict. It does not matter how the parties feel about the outcome they are bound by the conclusion. The big negative in arbitration is that it ignores the relational aspect of the conflict, and it almost always produces, if not real sometimes often perceived, a win-lose outcome. The pattern is clear, the harder it is to reach a resolution, the less likely it will be to have a win-win outcome.

For the Christian, we have a great guide for resolving conflicts in Matthew 18,

¹⁵"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. ¹⁶But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'¹⁷If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (NIV)

This passage can cut both ways. If we feel we have been wronged, we have a clear picture of how we are supposed to handle the conflict. If someone comes to us claiming we are the wrong doers we still have a path to resolution.

In conflict, the surest way to a win-lose outcome will always be “my way, or the highway.”

*