Third, in productive conflict individuals or groups direct the conflict toward cooperative problem solving. For example, a partner may ask, "How can we work this out?" By contrast, in destructive conflict strategies are escalated into power, threat, coercion, and deception. An individual might threaten his or her partner, "Either you do what I want, or else." Finally, in productive conflict individuals or groups trust leadership that stresses mutually satisfactory outcomes; in destructive conflict, individuals or groups polarize behind single-minded and militant leadership.
Competition Versus Cooperation
As you can see, the general theme in destructive conflict is competitive escalation. Conflict often spirals into long-term negativity. The conflicting parties have set up a self-perpetuating, mutually confirming expectation. "Each is treating the other badly because it feels that the other deserves to be treated badly because the other treats it badly and so on" (Deutsch, 1987: 41).
How can individuals and groups promote cooperative processes in conflict situations? The general atmosphere of a relationship will promote specific processes and acts (Deutsch, 1973). A competitive atmosphere will promote coercion [= forced action], deception, suspicion, rigidity, and poor communication.
In contrast, a cooperative atmosphere will promote perceived similarity, trust, flexibility, and open communication. The key is that the atmosphere must be introduced in the beginning stages of relationships or group interaction. It is much more difficult to turn a competitive relationship into a cooperative one once the conflict has started to escalate.
Essential to setting a cooperative atmosphere is exploration. Whereas competition often relies on argumentation, cooperation relies on exploration. Exploration may be done in various ways in different cultures but basically consists of several steps. The parties put the issue of conflict on hold, and all parties explore other options or delegate the problem to a third party. Blaming is suspended, so it's possible to generate new ideas or positions.
"If all conflicting parties are committed to the process, there is a sense of joint ownership of the recommended solution… Moving toward enemies as if they were friends exerts a paradoxical force on them and can bring transcendence" (Hocker & Wilmot; 1998: 191). Finally, exploration does not have to be logically consistent or rational. As David Augsburger points out, "Exploration can be provocative, speculative, and emotional" (1992: 61). It should encourage us to think of innovative and interesting solutions to the conflict at hand.
Dealing With Conflict
There are no easy answers for dealing with intercultural conflict. At times, we can apply the principles of dialectics. At times, we may need to step back and show self-restraint [= reserve, restraint]. Occasionally it may be more appropriate to assert ourselves and not be afraid of strong emotion. Seven suggestions can be offered here:
1. Stay centered and do not polarize
2. Maintain contact
3. Recognize the existence of different styles
4. Identify your preferred style
5. Be creative and expand your conflict style repertoire
6. Recognize the importance of conflict context
7. Be willing to forgive
Stay Centered and Do Not Polarize. David Augsburger (1992: 66) elaborates on this suggested approach to dealing with conflict. He explains:
Immediately challenge the intrusion of either-or thinking, traditional stereotypes, and reductionistic explanations of the other's motives as simple while seeing your own as complex. Sustain the conflicting images of reality, one from the antagonist and one of your own, in parallel co-existence within your mind. Be open to a third, centered perspective that may bring a new synthesis into view.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.