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.”
TJ
*
