A basic analytical look into conflict and approaches to resolution

1. Running head: CONFLICT: THE FINAL ANALYSIS 1
Conflict: The Final Analysis
Edward Struzinski
Kaplan University

2. CONFLICT: THE FINAL ANALYSIS 2
On any given day, conflict can occur between at least two people who share different
views on a subject. It is generally a win/lose struggle with perception sitting at the center of all
conflict. People perceive that their goals are incompatible with each other, that there are not
enough resources available to find resolution, and/or that the opposing party is interfering with
the personal outcome they hope to achieve. “Another continuum shows conflict ranging from
avoidance to violence” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007). One only look to the relationship between the
United States and Cuba for over a half-century to understand an example of avoidance, as neither
country has open discussion or trade with the other. A look at history also reveals conflicts
resulting in violent outcomes, such as wars.
Communication
Wilmot and Hocker (2007) explain that communication is at the very heart of all conflict,
that it is intricately tied to it. Communication, whether it is verbal or nonverbal, creates and
reflects conflict as well as being the vehicle toward positive or negative management of it
(Wilmot & Hocker, 2007). Verbal communication is key to finding resolution, as each party
needs to explain what is on their minds and also wishes to be heard. Individuals should also be
more cognizant of their non-verbal form of communication as well: body language and facial
expressions. The University of Rochester (2013) suggests several avenues toward successful
conflict resolution, including “communicate in a way that facilitates a problem-solving and
caring climate. Be open … be careful about what you say and how you say it. Be an active
listener … summarize … the discussion toward resolution” (UR, 2013). Being cognizant of these
simple tasks can and would make one a better listener and even better communicator: verbally
stating feelings about an issue or concerns. However, how often do we tend to use avoidance
tactics as our saving grace when faced with a difficult discussion?

3. CONFLICT: THE FINAL ANALYSIS 3
Conflict style
To that end, there are other discrepancies between feuding parties that exist and which
generally involve a particular “conflict style” and that revolve around the concepts of balance of
power. During a heated argument, for example, one party may hold fast to an avoidant-style of
conflict, illustrated by noncommittal behavior, changing the subject, not facing the issue at hand
or even withdrawing from the issue. Whereas the opposing party may display an opposite, more
competitive-style of conflict, such as aggressive behavior and making “winning” the goal.
Each style has it’s own set of advantages and disadvantages. Avoidance offers extra time
to gather thoughts and evidence before proceeding and it also provides a level of protection from
being influenced by the opposing party. “If one’s goal is to keep the other party from influencing
him or her, then avoidance helps to accomplish that goal” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).
Conversely, an avoidant style during a sensitive argument may also effectively portray the
appearance of one not caring enough in the relationship to face significant issues, or an
unwillingness to change. This is a major element that can slowly divide two parties further apart.
Lastly, there are two cycles of avoidance that show a predictable pattern seen in conflict. The
first aforementioned style typically leads to the second cycle in avoidance: one in which there is
an issue that is not addressed, it is avoided, eventually leading to an escalation or argument and
more avoidance of the issue, switching interchangeably with the first cycle. Resolution is
difficult, at best. “Cycle Two pattern often describes the behavior of married couples” (Wilmot
& Hocker, 2007). In these situations, a compromising or collaborative-style toward the conflict
may likely prove more beneficial toward a resolution rather than the tactics associated with
avoidance, such as changing the subject or making jokes to falsely lighten the situation. “The
constructive ways of approaching conflict are compromise and collaboration” (UR, 2013).

4. CONFLICT: THE FINAL ANALYSIS 4
Imbalance of power
Just as perception lies at the core of all conflict, power is also an essential concept of
understanding a disagreement. It is the very structure and nature of conflict. Power has several
definitions, one being “the ability or right to control people or things” (Merriam-Webster, 2014)
and it is seen as being designated, distributive, or integrative in conflict. Distributive power is
seen as dominance and authority over another party. It is the “kill or be killed” theory in battle,
or more simplified, “I control you or you control me”. Designated power is that which is given to
a particular person through their position, such as when a Justice of the Peace expresses “by the
power invested in me” while officiating a marriage ceremony. Finally, power that is deemed
integrative is seen as the type in which “both parties have to achieve something in the
relationship” (Wilmot & Hocke, 2007).
All relationships generally have some form of competition for power. “The high power
party may simply refuse to enter into a negotiation, because they have no need to. They can get
what they want without compromising” (CRC, 1998). Wilmot and Hocker (2007) challenge this,
explaining “one way to reduce power others have over you is to change your goals” (Wilmot &
Hocker, 2007). In doing so, your personal power currency increases when the value of what you
have to offer another individual is reinforced. Sharing thoughts, concerns, advice, friendship –
essentially yourself, your soul, in a relationship – is a way of communicating both verbally and
nonverbally that which you have to offer another. An openly accepting recipient will become
more dependent on these nontangible assets as the relationship progresses because they are
valuable benefits to the relationship and are seen as rewarding toward a positive future. To this
end, one party gains more power in the relationship when the other party has dependence or an
expressed need for it. Nonverbal steps can also shift the imbalance of power, especially in forms

5. CONFLICT: THE FINAL ANALYSIS 5
of action (or lack of) that can powerfully impact a relationship. Regardless of the descriptions of
power, it is significant that all individuals have potential power currencies and resources that can
be used to gain or balance power in a relationship (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).
TRIP goals
Wilmot and Hocker (2007) describe how people in conflict have four goals that they
follow and overlap or shift to and from during their quarrel. The acronym TRIP describes the
following goals inherent to both parties: Topic, Relational, Identity, and Process. Topic goals
determine what the parties are fighting over; Relational goals establish who the parties are to
each other and how they each would want to be treated by the other. Identity goals look inward,
assessing self-identity in the conflict first (who am I in this interaction?) and then “as conflicts
increase in intensity, the parties shift to face saving as a key goal” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).
Face saving may occur openly and aggressively when quarreling parties resort to posing
questions that help save their image or reputation when a conflict escalates, implying innocence.
Process goals ascertain what form of communication is best to find resolution of the conflict,
such as a friendly informal meeting or the hiring of a formal mediator. Often a look at the
conflict itself and how each party interacts with each other may provide the best insight to this
goal.
“When we have a conflict, a relationship is temporarily destabilized. An interpersonal
conflict is an expressed disagreement between at least two people whose goals are incompatible
at the moment” (UR, 2013). Several conflict concepts may be utilized toward a resolution,
however, an analysis of each can provide helpful insight and guidance to each party toward
future exchanges of differences.

6. CONFLICT: THE FINAL ANALYSIS 6
References
Conflict Research Consortium. University of Colorado. (1998). Power imbalances. Retrieved
from: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/powerimb.htm
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2014). Power. Retrieved from: http://www.merriam
webster.com/dictionary/power
University of Rochester. (2013). Communication and conflict resolution. Retrieved from:
http://www.rochester.edu/ucc/help/info/comconflict.html
Wilmot, W. & Hocker, J. (2007). Interpersonal conflict. (7th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.