Submitted by:Jyoti Rawat Section-FB-2 Roll No-25

INTRODUCTION
Conflict is part of life: it is an inevitable consequence of interacting with other people. In both our professional lives and in our personal lives we are constantly faced with statements, actions, needs, drives, wishes, demands or positions that are incompatible with or opposed to our own. Conflict is something that arises in any workplace and that is particularly true when speaking about healthcare and the nursing field. Conflict by definition is competitive or opposing action of incompatibles and a mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands. If these conflicts are managed correctly the results can be positive as opposed to negative. We define conflict as a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Within this simple definition there are several important understandings that emerge: Disagreement - Generally, we are aware there is some level of difference in the positions of the two (or more) parties involved in the conflict. But the true disagreement versus the perceived disagreement may be quite different from one another. In fact, conflict tends to be accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement considerably. If we can understand the true areas of disagreement, this will help us solve the right problems and manage the true needs of the parties. Parties involved - There are often disparities in our sense of who is involved in the conflict. Sometimes, people are surprised to learn they are a party to the conflict, while other times we are shocked to learn we are not included in the disagreement. On many occasions, people who are seen as part of the social system (e.g., work team,

family, company) are influenced to participate in the dispute, whether they would personally define the situation in that way or not. In the above example, people very readily "take sides" based upon current perceptions of the issues, past issues and relationships, roles within the organizationand other factors. The parties involved can become an elusive concept to define. Perceived threat - People respond to the perceived threat, rather than the true threat, facing them. Thus, while perception doesn't become reality per se, people's behaviors, feelings and ongoing responses become modified by that evolving sense of the threat they confront. If we can work to understand the true threat (issues) and develop strategies (solutions) that manage it (agreement), we are acting constructively to manage the conflict. Needs, interests or concerns - There is a tendency to narrowly define "the problem" as one of substance, task, and near-term viability. However, workplace conflicts tend to be far more complex than that, for they involve ongoing relationships with complex, emotional components. Simply stated, there are always procedural needs and psychological needs to be addressed within the conflict, in addition to the substantive needs that are generally presented. And the durability of the interests and concerns of the parties transcends the immediate presenting situation. Any efforts to resolve conflicts effectively must take these points into account. Conflict is often needed. It: 1. Helps to raise and address problems. 2. Energizes work to be on the most appropriate issues. 3. Helps people "be real", for example, it motivates them to participate. 4. Helps people learn how to recognize and benefit from their differences. Conflict is not the same as discomfort. The conflict isn't the problem - it is when conflict is poorly managed that is the problem.

Conflict is a problem when it: 1. Hampers productivity. 2. Lowers morale. 3. Causes more and continued conflicts. 4. Causes inappropriate behaviors

TYPES OF CONFLICT
By evaluating a conflict according to the five categories below -relationship, data, interest, structural and value -- we can begin to determine the causes of a conflict and design resolution strategies that will have a higher probability of success.

RELATIONSHIP CONFLICTS
Relationship conflicts occur because of the presence of strong negative emotions, misperceptions or stereotypes, poor communication or miscommunication, or repetitive negative behaviors. Relationship problems often fuel disputes and lead to an unnecessary escalating spiral of destructive conflict. Supporting the safe and balanced expression of perspectives and emotions for acknowledgment (not agreement) is one effective approach to managing relational conflict.

DATA CONFLICTS
Data conflicts occur when people lack information necessary to make wise decisions, are misinformed, disagree on which data is relevant, interpret information differently, or have competing assessment procedures. Some data conflicts may be unnecessary since they are caused by poor communication between the people in

conflict. Other data conflicts may be genuine incompatibilities associated with data collection, interpretation or communication. Most data conflicts will have "data solutions."

INTEREST CONFLICTS
Interest conflicts are caused by competition over perceived

incompatible needs. Conflicts of interest result when one or more of the parties believe that in order to satisfy his or her needs, the needs and interests of an opponent must be sacrificed. Interestbased conflict will commonly be be expressed in positional terms. A variety of interests and intentions underlie and motivate positions in negotiation and must be addressed for maximized resolution. Interest-based conflicts may occur over substantive issues (such as money, physical resources, time, etc.); procedural issues (the way the dispute is to be resolved); and psychological issues (perceptions of trust, fairness, desire for participation, respect, etc.). For an interest-based dispute to be resolved, parties must be assisted to define and express their individual interests so that all of these interests may be jointly addressed. Interest-based conflict is best resolved through the maximizing integration of the parties' respective interests, positive intentions and desired experiential outcomes.

STRUCTURAL CONFLICTS
Structural conflicts are caused by forces external to the people in dispute. Limited physical resources or authority, geographic constraints (distance or proximity), time (too little or too much), organizational changes, and so forth can make structural conflict seem like a crisis. It can be helpful to assist parties in conflict to appreciate the external forces and constraints bearing upon them. Structural conflicts will often have structural solutions. Parties' appreciation that a conflict has an external source can have the effect of them coming to jointly address the imposed difficulties.

VALUE CONFLICTS
Value conflicts are caused by perceived or actual incompatible belief systems. Values are beliefs that people use to give meaning to their lives. Values explain what is "good" or "bad," "right" or "wrong," "just" or "unjust." Differing values need not cause conflict. People can live together in harmony with different value systems. Value disputes arise only when people attempt to force one set of values on others or lay claim to exclusive value systems that do not allow for divergent beliefs. It is of no use to try to change value and belief systems during relatively short and strategic mediation interventions. It can, however, be helpful to support each participant's expression of their values and beliefs for acknowledgment by the other party.

THE LIFE CYCLE OF A CONFLICT

Conflicts are processes, a cluster of events taking time to evolve and reshape. They are always complicated - after all, they are part of the complex lives of human beings. But there are distinct stages which conflicts have in common, through which they pass, sometimes over and over again.

Life-cycle 1. BEGININING A conflict begins to take shape as the differences between the conflicting parties become clearly defined and people begin to take sides openly. The language of 'us and them' starts being widely used, and the idea of a 'cause' to support emerges on both sides. There is no violence at this point. If a society is strong and its leaders enlightened, a conflict can be dealt with in a constructive and positive way at this stage, and violence and a worsening situation can be avoided.

Life-cycle 2. EARLY GROWTH But if there are no existing ways of dealing with social tensions and divisions, the conflict grows worse. The two sides express open hostility, so that 'us and them' now become 'the enemy' to each other. Each side increases its demands, and its sense of grievance swells. Each side looks for allies from outside the conflict area, for moral and physical support. Acts of violence begin. If violence is not repressed, the opposing sides hit back at one another and a destructive and deadly spiral begins. If one of the sides has greater forces (as governments backed by armies do, for example, when suppressing civilian opposition) it may at this stage suppress its opponents, but the underlying causes of conflict remain to break out another day. Life-cycle 3. DEADLOCK Now the two sides are openly at war. Each side perceives the other as the aggressor on whom blame for the conflict falls. Each side regards itself as having the just cause. The lawlessness of war takes over, as inhibitions and restraints on violence are abandoned. Three possible situations can now be reached: (a) a stalemate with each side matching the other in violence; (b) a surge of violence on one side; (c) exhaustion of strength and resources on both sides ( this has been called 'a mutually-hurting stalemate'). Situation (a) continues the spiral of violence, or may halt it at a particular level which both sides keep up. Situation (b) can make a change: for example, one side's increased power may cause the other side to change its tactics. The conflict may return to earlier stages and repeat them. If a side now decides to withdraw, the conflict remains unresolved and is likely to begin again later. Situation (c) is the position from which the conflict can most readily move to its next stage.

Life-cycle 4. LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT If and when the conflict reaches a stage where both sides are unhappy with the state of things - many losses, dwindling resources, no achievable 'result' - they may enter into ceasefire agreements. These provide a pause, which is often used for resting and regrouping before embarking on the earlier stages again. Sooner or later, however, both sides decide that ending the conflict is a problem they must both solve, though it has to be done without loss of face. At this point a third party can be introduced to mediate and negotiate. This can be done, at first, without the leaders of the two sides having to meet each other. Life-cycle 5. SETTLING THE DISPUTE OR RESOLVING THE CONFLICT? Settlements involve compromise, often with bitter arguments over what the compromises will be. They seldom lead to a solution in which the two sides can collaborate to establish a firm peace. Settlements establish ways in which either side is prepared to end conflict at least for the time being. Conflict resolution, however, looks at the u underlying causes which started the conflict and deals with them, so that the risks of future conflict are removed, or initially reduced. Both sides join together to achieve this outcome. Complete resolution of a conflict is difficult after such great hostility, but may be reached after the passage of healing time if everyone has this aim. Life-cycle 6. WORKING TOGETHER Now the agreement has to be put into effect. Both sides need to create new order together, rebuilding homes, restoring jobs and education, establishing enlightened management/government, disarming fighters and allowing refugees to return home. Even more important, the two sides have to face up to the past, share their

griefs, and reconcile their differences. This needs sensitivity, courage, and, above all, immense patience.

STAGES OF CONFLICT
It has become common to describe conflicts as passing through a series of phases.[1] Different authors name and describe these stages differently, but most include, at a minimum:

No conflict Latent conflict Emergence Escalation (Hurting) Stalemate De-Escalation Settlement/Resolution Post-Conflict Peace building and Reconciliation

These phases are frequently shown on a diagram that looks something like this, although the accompanying text will always explain that the
progress from one stage to the next is not smooth and conflicts may repeat stages several times.

Latent Conflict Stage

When the "stages of conflict" are listed by conflict scholars, the first phase is often listed as "latent conflict" or "unstable peace," It exists whenever individuals, groups, organizations, or nations have differences that bother one or the other, but those differences are not great enough to cause one side to act to alter the situation. Differential power, resources, differing interests or values all have the potential to spark conflict if a triggering event occurs. Citing Collins, Paul Weir observed that, "social life is above all a struggle for power and status regardless of the type of structure. An inevitable power differential between groups, and between individuals, produces latent conflict in all social relations. Yet the seeds of conflict may exist for long periods of time without actors being aware of them. Often one side, most likely the privileged one, is largely unaware of the existence of tensions. While the less-privileged party may be aware of the situation, and may even consider it unjust, the conflict does not "emerge" until they act to change the situation.

Conflict Emergence Stage

It is common for significant tensions or grievances to persist over long periods of time without resulting in a noticeable conflict. This essay explores the factors that transform such tensions into an active conflict. After a conflict has remained latent for some time, if the underlying grievances or frustrations are strong enough, a "triggering event" marks the emergence or the "eruption" phase of the conflict. This event or episode may be the first appearance of the conflict, or it may be a confrontation that erupts in the context of a protracted, but dormant, or low-level conflict.

Escalation and Institutionalization Stage

When a conflict reaches the escalation phase, it intensifies quickly. Escalating conflicts can turn into a spiral with each side continually provoking each other to raise the stakes, making the conflict more and more destructive. Escalation involves an increase in the intensity of a conflict and in the severity of tactics used in pursuing it. Once a conflict is in the escalation phase, identities, grievances, goals, and methods often change in ways that perpetuate the conflict in increasingly destructive fashion.[1] Thus, each side's collective identity is shaped as the opposite of the enemy's identity. Group loyalty is also often demonstrated by antagonism toward the enemy. Additionally, good qualities are increasingly attributed to one's own group, while bad qualities are increasingly attributed to the enemy, sometimes going so far as to dehumanize the enemy.

Failed Peacemaking Efforts Stage

The repeated failure to negotiate an end to a conflict confirms its intractability. Often these failures discourage new attempts and create a burden of mistrust to be overcome. Consequently, the struggle continues.

Hurting Stalemate Stage

Once conflicts escalate for awhile, the parties often reach a stalemate, neither party can win, but neither party wants to back down. At this stage the parties have two options, continue to bleed each other dry or look towards resolution. Once conflicts escalate for awhile, they often reach a stalemate: a situation in which neither side can win, but neither side wants to back down or accept loss either. Stalemates emerge for a number of reasons: failed tactics, depletion of available resources to fuel the conflict, a reduction in support of the conflict by group members or allies, or costs becoming too high to continue. Despite realizing that the conflict is going nowhere, it is often difficult for parties to transform the nature of the conflict and consider a settlement. For long-term conflicts, individuals have been socialized to the polarized view of self and other. They are afraid of the other side and do not want to reconcile with them or meet their demands.

De-escalation Stage
Conflicts do not escalate indefinitely. Eventually, they reverse direction, decreasing in intensity until they are forgotten or resolved. Conflict de-escalation and transformation are often also associated with reduced grievances, at least for members of one side. This change occurs as relations between the adversaries change, in the course of the struggle. Thus, some rights that one party sought may be at least partially won, and that party's goals are then accordingly softened. Goals also change as they come to be regarded as unattainable or as requiring unacceptable burdens. Goals may then be recast so that they may be achieved with reasonable means. They may even be recast so as to provide mutual benefits for the opposing sides. For example, Frederick Willem de Klerk, as president of South Africa, led in reformulating the goals of the National Party, Afrikaners, and whites of South Africa to create a new, post-apartheid state.

Negotiation Stage
In the negotiation stage, parties search for mutually- beneficial ways of resolving their conflict. This stage must be timed and executed very carefully in order to avoid a return to the escalation stage. There comes a point, often after a stalemate is reached, where the parties decide to try negotiation to attempt to resolve the conflict. The process of initiating negotiation can be difficult as it may be interpreted as a sign of weakness. This is one reason why it is often useful for third parties to become involved. The timing of this step is crucial.Resolution can only be achieved if the parties are willing to negotiation. In order for the conditions to be ripe, there must be both a perception on all sides that the present course is unsustainable, and a perception that there is a suitable "way out"[3] of the conflict. In some instances, participants realize their course of action cannot succeed and they initiate discussion. At other times, outside interveners may bring the parties to the negotiating table. The timing is critical however, because if negotiation is started too early, before both parties are ready, it is likely to fail. And repeated failed negotiation efforts reinforce the notion that the conflict is intractable and can make resolution more difficult by discouraging further efforts. Negotiation may lead to a settlement, but may also simply lead to a pause in the conflict. If the latter, there is a relatively good chance the conflict may cycle back to escalation at a later time.

Settlement Stage
The settlement stage marks the end of the active conflict. With the waning of apartheid in South Africa, for example, the South African identity began to incorporate all the people of South Africa instead of just black or white. This was a sign that the settlement stage of the conflict was successful.

Peacebuilding and Reconciliation Stage

In long-running inter-group conflicts, after successful negotiation, peacebuilding and reconciliation is necessary to prevent a return to the conflict. In this stage, disputants begin to heal and to rebuild relationships, slowly putting their society back together. Even after a settlement is reached and a peace agreement is signed, this is by no means the end of the conflict. The settlement has to be implemented. If it is just a conflict between two people, this may not be hard: those two people do what they agree to do, and past problems may be solved. (They also may not be solved, as is evidenced by the number of divorce cases that end up back in court later because one party does not think the other has lived up to the agreement.) But in communal- and societal-level conflicts, implementation becomes much more of a problem. In addition to the elite who negotiated the agreement, their constituents also have to agree to the settlement, or else the agreement is likely to fail. Usually, there is a long period of peacebuilding among the grassroots people, eventually culminating in apology, forgiveness and reconciliation.

ROLE OF ATTITUDE IN CONFLICT MANAGENMENT

Conflict arises when individuals strongly oppose each others opinions and views and are not willing to compromise with each other. A conflict solves no problems; it just creates tensions, anxiety and earns you a bad name. No body appreciates you, if you are constantly engaged in fights. Conflicts must be controlled at the right time for a healthy and a peaceful environment. Attitude plays a very important role in conflict management. Nothing can be achieved unless and until you believe in yourself and have a positive attitude. An individual must avoid finding faults in others. Always remember, if you are pointing towards someone else, four fingers are towards you as well. Dont always assume that the other person is at fault. Adopt a positive attitude towards work and life on the whole. Be a little more flexible and adjusting. No one has ever gained anything out of conflicts, it has all the adverse consequencies. Individuals tend to lose control on their emotions and overreact hurting the sentiments of the other person. Dont always be negative. According to the law of attraction, if you adopt a positive attitude, good things happen to you, whereas a negative attitude always attracts negative things. Conflicts, fights spoil the environment and you feel restless and anxious always. You will not lose anything if you take the initiative to resolve the fight. This way you will earn respect and people will look up to you. Be the first one to say sorry. It will not make you small, instead will prevent you from unnecessary tensions. A simple sorry can actually solve major arguments and conflicts. Make sure you enter your workplace with calm and a positive mind. If your mind is clouded with negative thoughts, everything will seem wrong. Nothing interests you and you would always be in

a mood to fight with others. Be a little more forgiving. It works. Forgiving has a healing effect on individuals. If the other person has done something wrong to you, dont drag the issues, instead forgive him. Not everyone is blessed with the art of forgiving, it comes with time. Do not stick to any issue, move on. If you are going through any bad relationship, stop cribbing and fighting, instead move on. Always look at the brighter side of life. There are much better things in life rather than quarrelling with everyone. You need people and relationships are important in life. Whenever you feel like fighting with others, take a pause and think for a minute would this fight ever benefit you? Positive attitude gives you the desired mental peace. Individuals with a negative attitude indulge themselves in spreading rumours, false stories and tend to influence others as well. One rotten apple spoils the other fresh apples as well. One negative mind is enough to trigger conflicts and create unrest. Never be unhappy; always find reasons to be happy. Sometimes things might not be in your favour, but thats not the end of road. Dont unnecessarily carry stress and create problems for yourself as well as others. Conflict occurs between people in all kinds of human relationships and in all social settings. Because of the wide range of potential differences among people, the absence of conflict usually Signals the absence of meaningful interaction. Conflict by itself is neither good nor bad. However, the manner in which conflict is handled determines whether it is constructive or destructive Conflict is defined as an incompatibility of goals or values between two or more parties in a relationship, combined with attempts to control each other and antagonistic feelings toward each Other. The incompatibility or difference may exist in reality or may only be perceived by the parties involved. Nonetheless, the opposing actions and the hostile emotions are very real hallmarks of human conflict. Conflict has the potential for either a great deal of destruction or much creativity and positive social change. Therefore, it is essential

to understand the basic processes of conflict so that we can work to maximize productive outcomes and minimize destructive ones. This paper will briefly describe some common sources of conflict, the levels of social interaction at which conflict occurs, and the general strategies of approaching conflict that are available.

SOURCES OF CONFLICT
Early reviews in the field of conflict resolution identified a large number of schemes for describing sources or types of conflict (Fink, 1968; Mack & Snyder, 1958). One of the early theorists on conflict, Daniel Katz (1965), created a typology that distinguishes three main sources of conflict: economic, value, and power. 1. Economic conflict involves competing motives to attain scarce resources. Each Party wants to get the most that it can, and the behavior and emotions of each Parties are directed toward maximizing its gain. Union and management conflict Often has as one of its sources the incompatible goals of how to slice up the Economic pie. 2. Value conflict involves incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies the preferences, principles and practices that people believe in. International conflict (e.g., the Cold War) often has a strong value component, wherein each side asserts the rightness and superiority of its way of life and its political-economic system. 3. Power conflict occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximize the amount of influence that it exerts in the relationship and the social setting. It is impossible for one party to be stronger without the other being weaker, at least in terms of direct influence over each other. Thus, a power struggle ensues which usually ends in a victory and defeat, or in a stand-off with a continuing state of tension. Power conflicts can occur between individuals, between groups or between nations, whenever one or both parties choose to take a power approach to the relationship. Power also enters into all conflict since the parties are attempting to control each other.It must be noted that most conflicts are not of a pure type, but involve a mixture of sources. Forexample, union-management conflict typically involves economic competition, but may also take the form of a power struggle and often involves different ideologies or political values. The

more sources that are involved, the more intense and intractable the conflict usually is. Another important source of conflict is ineffective communication. Miscommunication and Misunderstanding can create conflict even where there are no basic incompatibilities. In addition, parties may have different perceptions as to what are the facts in a situation, and until they share information and clarify their perceptions, resolution is impossible. Self-centeredness, selective perception, emotional bias, prejudices, etc., are all forces that lead us to perceive situations very differently from the other party. Lack of skill in communicating what we really mean in a clear and respectful fashion often results in confusion, hurt and anger, all of which simply feed the conflict process. Whether the conflict has objective sources or is due only to perceptual or communication problems, it is experienced as very real by the parties involved.

Escalation of Conflict: A final source of conflict is more additional than basic, that is, it comes in after the conflict has started. Conflicts have a definite tendency to escalate, i.e., to become more intense and hostile, and to develop more issues, i.e., what the parties say the conflict is about. Therefore, escalating conflicts become more difficult to manage. The process of escalation feeds on fear and defensiveness. Threat leads to counter threat, usually with higher stakes at each go-round. Selective and distorted perception justifies a competitive and cautious approach as opposed to a trusting and cooperative one. Through Deutschs crude law of social relations (1973), competition breeds competition, rather than cooperation. The selffulfilling prophecy comes into play. Each party believes in the evil intentions of the other and the inevitability of disagreement, and therefore takes precautionary actions which signal mistrust and competitiveness (Blake, Shepard &Mouton, 1964). When the other party then responds with a counteraction, this is perceived as justifying the initial precautionary measure, and a new spiral of action and counteraction begins.Through the norm of reciprocity, stronger attempts to control are met not only with stronger resistance, but more contentious attempts to gain the upper hand.With each succeeding spiral of conflict, polarization grows and the parties become more adamant and intransigent in their approach to the situation. Even though the intensity of the conflict may moderate for periods of time, the issues remain, and a triggering event induces conflictual behavior with negative

consequences, and the conflict has moved one more step up the escalation staircase. When parties become locked in to a conflict they are usually unable to get out by themselves, and the intervention of a third party in the role of arbitrator, mediator or consultant may be required Levels of Conflict: Conflict can occur at a number of levels of human functioning. Conflict in your head between opposing motives or ideas is shown by your internal dialogue and is at the intrapersonal level.Beyond that, the primary concern here is with social conflict, i.e., conflict between people whether they are acting as individuals, as members of groups, or as representatives oforganizations or nations. Interpersonal conflict occurs when two people have incompatible needs, goals, or approaches in their relationship. Communication breakdown is often an important source of interpersonal conflict and learning communication skills is valuable in preventing and resolving suchdifficulties. At the same time, very real differences occur between people that cannot be resolved by any amount of improved communication. Personality conflict refers to verystrong differences in motives, values or styles in dealing with people that are not resolvable. For example, if both parties in a relationship have a high need for power and both want to be dominant in the relationship, there is no way for both to be satisfied, and a power struggleensues. Common tactics used in interpersonal power struggles include the exaggerated use of rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional blackmail, and flattery or ingratiation. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the point of relationship breakdown and termination. Role conflict involves very real differences in role definitions, expectations or responsibilities between individuals who are interdependent in a social system. If there are ambiguities in role definitions in an organization or unclear boundaries of responsibilities, then the stage is set for interpersonal friction between the persons involved. Unfortunately, the conflict is often misdiagnosed as interpersonal conflict rather than role conflict, and resolution is then complicated and misdirected. The emotional intensity is often quite high in role conflict since people are directly involved as individuals and there is a strong tendency to personalize the conflict.

Intergroup conflict occurs between collections of people such as ethnic or racial groups, departments or levels of decision making in the same organization, and union and management. Competition for scarce resources is a common source of intergroup conflict, and societies havedeveloped numerous regulatory mechanisms, such as collective bargaining and mediation, for dealing with intergroup conflict in less disruptive ways. Social-psychological processes are very important in intergroup conflict . Group members tend to develop stereotypes (oversimplified negative beliefs) of the opposing group, tend to blame them for their own problems (scapegoating), and practice discrimination against them. These classic symptoms of intergroup conflict can be just as evident in organizations as in race relations in community settings. Intergroup conflict is especially tense and prone to escalation and intractability when group identities are threatened. The costs of destructive intergroup conflict can be extremely high for a society in both economic and social terms. Multi-Party Conflict occurs in societies when different interest groups and organizations have varying priorities over resource management and policy development. These complex conflicts typically involve a combination of economic, value and power sources. This complexity is often beyond the reach of traditional authoritative or adversarial procedures, and more collaborative approaches to building consensus are required for resolution. International conflict occurs between states at the global level. Competition for resources certainly plays a part, but value and power conflict are often intertwined and sometimes predominate. The differences are articulated through the channels of diplomacy in a constant game of give and take, or threat and counterthreat, sometimes for the highest of stakes. Mechanisms of propaganda can lead to many of the same social-psychological distortions that characterize interpersonal and intergroup conflict.

Methods of Conflict Resolution:

Regardless of the level of conflict, there are differing approaches to deal with the incompatibilities that exist. Conflict can result in destructive outcomes or creative onesdepending on the approach that is taken. If we can manage conflict creatively, we can oftenfind new solutions that are mutually satisfactory to both parties. Sometimes this will involve a distribution of resources or power that is more equitable than before, or in creating a larger pool of resources or forms of influence

than before. Creative outcomes are more probable when the parties are interdependent, i.e., each having some degree of independence and autonomy from which to influence the other, rather than one party being primarily dependent on the other. Given interdependence, three general strategies have been identified that the parties may take toward dealing with their conflict; win-lose, lose-lose, and win-win. The win-lose approach is all too common. People learn the behaviors of destructive conflict early in life competition, dominance, aggression and defense permeate many of our social relationships from the family to the school playground. The fixed pie assumption is made, often incorrectly, that what one party gains, the other loses. The strategy is thus to force the other side to capitulate. Sometimes, this is done through socially acceptable mechanisms such as majority vote, the authority of the leader, or the determination of a judge. Sometimes, it involves secret strategies, threat, innuendo whatever works is acceptable, i.e., the ends justify the means. There is often a strong we-they distinction accompanied by the classic symptoms of intergroup conflict. The valued outcome is to have a victor who is superior, and a vanquished who withdraws in shame, but who prepares very carefully for the next round. In the long run,everyone loses. The lose-lose strategy is exemplified by smoothing over conflict or by reaching the simplest of compromises. In neither case is the creative potential of productive conflict resolution realized or explored. Disagreement is seen as inevitable, so therefore why not split the difference or smooth over difficulties in as painless a way as possible? Sometimes, this is indeed the reality of the situation, and the costs are less than in the win-lose approach, at least for the loser. Each party gets some of what it wants, and resigns itself to partial satisfaction. Neither side is aware that by confronting the conflict fully and cooperatively they might have created a more satisfying solution. Or the parties may realistically use this approach to divide limited resources or to Forestall a win-lose escalation and outcome. The win-win approach is a conscious and systematic attempt to maximize the goals of both parties through collaborative problem solving. The conflict is seen as a problem to be solved rather than a war to be won. The important distinction is we (both parties) versus the problem, rather than we (one party) versus they (the other party). This method focuses on the needs and constraints of both parties rather than emphasizing strategies designed to conquer. Full problem definition and analysis and development of alternatives precedes consensus decisions on mutually agreeable solutions. The parties work toward common and superordinate goals, i.e.,ones that can only be attained by both parties pulling together. There is an

emphasis on thequality of the long term relationships between the parties, rather than short term accommodations. Communication is open and direct rather than secretive and calculating. Threat and coercion are proscribed. The assumption is made that integrative agreements are possible given the full range of resources existing in the relationship. Attitudes and behaviors are directed toward an increase of trust and acceptance rather than an escalation of suspicion and hostility. The win-win approach requires a very high degree of patience and skill in human relations and problem solving. Conflict is an inevitable fact of human existence. If we work to understand and manage iteffectively, we can improve both the satisfaction and productivity of our social relationships.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Conflict management involves implementing strategies to limit the negative aspects of conflict and to increase the positive aspects of conflict at a level equal to or higher than where the conflict is taking place. Furthermore, the aim of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes (effectiveness or performance in organizational setting) (Rahim, 2002, p. 208). It is not concerned with eliminating all conflict or avoiding conflict

Conflict Resolution Vs. Conflict Management

As the name would suggest, conflict resolution involves the reduction, elimination, or termination of all forms and types of conflict. In practice, when people talk about conflict resolution they tend to use terms like negotiation, bargaining, mediation, or arbitration. In line with the recommendations in the "how to" section, businesses can benefit from appropriate types and levels of conflict. That is the aim of conflict management, and not the aim of conflict resolution. Conflict management does not necessarily imply conflict resolution. Conflict management involves designing effective macro-level strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and enhancing the constructive functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in an organization(Rahim, 2002, p. 208). Learning is essential for the longevity of any group. This is especially true for organizations; Organizational learning is essential for any company to remain in the market. Properly managed

conflict increases learning through increasing the degree to which groups ask questions and challenge the status quo (Luthans, Rubach, & Marsnik, 1995).

MODELS OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

There have been many styles of conflict management behavior that have been researched in the past century. One of the earliest, Mary Parker Follett (1926/1940) found that conflict was managed by individuals in three main ways: domination, compromise, and integration. She also found other ways of handling conflict that were employed by organizations, such as avoidance and suppression.

Early Conflict Management Models

Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme for classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts into five types: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving. In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers began using the intentions of the parties involved to classify the styles of conflict management that they would include in their models. Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties concern for their own interests (i.e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table (i.e cooperativeness) would yield a particular conflict management style. Pruitt called these styles yielding (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving (high assertiveness/high cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness), and contending (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that problem-solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial options.

Kozans Group Conflict Management Models In the 1990s and 2000s, research began to focus more on models that would explain how conflict is managed within groups and organizations. Kozan (1997)

established three normative (not prescriptive) models of group conflict management. 1. Confrontational model - In this model, conflicts are made of multiple subissues which are broken down and confronted by both parties. Both sides of the conflict are openly acknowledged, and a sense of reasonable compromise is important to the success of the resolution of the sub-issues involved. 2. Harmony model - In this model, conflict is managed mostly though avoiding it. This is accomplished through the observation of societal and organizational norms. Conflict is not seen as an opportunity to find solutions to problems, but as a harmful state of affairs. When conflict does occur, it is often handled through mediation by third parties. 3. Regulative model - In the regulative model, conflict is handled by strict rules and regulations. Bureaucratic means are used extensively to minimize conflicts or to aid conflict avoidance. When conflicts occur, they are defined in terms of general principles and resolved in a predetermined fashion.

Khun and Pooles Model Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In their system, they split Kozans confrontational model into two sub models: distributive and integrative.

Distributive - Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions. Integrative - Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the distributive model. Kuhun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive model.

DeChurch and Markss Meta-Taxonomy DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict management at the time and established what they claimed was a "meta-taxonomy" that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in them into two dimensions - activeness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression") and agreeableness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and strainful impression"). In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.

Current Conflict Management Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict. In a similar vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict management, he created a meta-model (in much the same way that DeChurch and Marks, 2001, created a meta-taxonomy) for conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others. Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Integration involves openness, exchanging information, looking for alternatives, and examining differences so solve the problem in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. Obliging is associated with attempting minimize the differences and highlight the commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party. When using the dominating style one party goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. When avoiding a party fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the concern of the other party. Lastly, compromising involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. (Rahim, 2002).

See the table on the right, as a quick reference for when a particular conflict management style is appropriate / inappropriate. Conflict Resolution Vs. Conflict Management As the name would suggest, conflict resolution involves the reduction, elimination, or termination of all forms and types of conflict. In practice, when people talk about conflict resolution they tend to use terms like negotiation, bargaining, mediation, or arbitration. In line with the recommendations in the "how to" section, businesses can benefit from appropriate types and levels of conflict. That is the aim of conflict management, and not the aim of conflict resolution. Conflict management does not necessarily imply conflict resolution. Conflict management involves designing effective macro-level strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and enhancing the constructive functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in an organization(Rahim, 2002, p. 208). Learning is essential for the longevity of any group. This is especially true for organizations; Organizational learning is essential for any company to remain in the market. Properly managed conflict increases learning through increasing the degree to which groups ask questions and challenge the status quo (Luthans, Rubach, & Marsnik, 1995).

MODELS OF CONFLICT MANAGEMNT

There have been many styles of conflict management behavior that have been researched in the past century. One of the earliest, Mary Parker Follett (1926/1940) found that conflict was managed by individuals in three main ways: domination, compromise, and integration. She also found other ways of handling conflict that were employed by organizations, such as avoidance and suppression.

Early Conflict Management Models

Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme for classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts into five types: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving. In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers began using the intentions of the parties involved to classify the styles of conflict management that they would include in their models. Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties concern for their own interests (i.e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table (i.e cooperativeness) would yield a particular conflict management style. Pruitt called these styles yielding (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving (high assertiveness/high cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness), and contending (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that problem-solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial options.

Kozans Group Conflict Management Models

In the 1990s and 2000s, research began to focus more on models that would explain how conflict is managed within groups and organizations. Kozan (1997) established three normative (not prescriptive) models of group conflict management. 1. Confrontational model - In this model, conflicts are made of multiple subissues which are broken down and confronted by both parties. Both sides of the conflict are openly acknowledged, and a sense of reasonable compromise is important to the success of the resolution of the sub-issues involved. 2. Harmony model - In this model, conflict is managed mostly though avoiding it. This is accomplished through the observation of societal and organizational norms. Conflict is not seen as an opportunity to find solutions to problems, but as a harmful state of affairs. When conflict does occur, it is often handled through mediation by third parties. 3. Regulative model - In the regulative model, conflict is handled by strict rules and regulations. Bureaucratic means are used extensively to minimize

conflicts or to aid conflict avoidance. When conflicts occur, they are defined in terms of general principles and resolved in a predetermined fashion.

Khun and Pooles Model

Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In their system, they split Kozans confrontational model into two sub models: distributive and integrative.

Distributive - Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions. Integrative - Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the distributive model. Kuhun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive model.

DeChurch and Markss Meta-Taxonomy

DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict management at the time and established what they claimed was a "meta-taxonomy" that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in them into two dimensions - activeness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression") and agreeableness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and strainful impression"). In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.

Current Conflict Management

Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict. In a similar vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict management, he created a meta-model (in much the same way that DeChurch and Marks, 2001, created a meta-taxonomy) for conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others.

CONCLUSION
Some people think conflict is a topic that should not be discussed and that we should not engage in conflict. Productively engaging in conflict is always valuable. Most people are willing and interested in resolving their conflicts; they just need the appropriate skill set and opportunities in which to practice this skill set. Without a conflict skill set, people want to avoid conflict, hoping it will go away or not wanting to make a big deal out of nothing. Research and personal experiences show us that, when we avoid conflict, the conflict actually escalates and our thoughts and feelings become more negative.Through conflict self-awareness we can more effectively manage our conflicts and therefore their professional and personal relationships. Furthermore, by discussing issues related to conflict management, teams can establish an expected protocol to be followed by team members when in conflict. All teams and organizations have a conflict culture (the way the team responds to conflict). However, most teams never discuss what the conflict culture is, therefore providing the opportunity for individual team members to make assumptions that can be counterproductive to the team. Practicing ones conflict management skills leads to more successful engagement in conflict with outcomes of relief, understanding, better communication, and greater productivity for both the individual and the team. When we manage our conflicts more effectively, we use less energy on the burdensome tasks such as systemic conflict and get to spend more of our energy on our projects at work and building our relationships.One type of conflict management strategy is called

'compromising'. This strategy can be defined as attempting to resolve a conflict by identifying a solution that is partially satisfactory to both parties, but completely satisfactory to neither. This type of management strategy requires the individual to be both partly assertive and partly cooperative in their actions and overall message. One's main goal with this particular strategy is to reach an advantageous solution that satisfies both parties. There are only certain times and situations that call for this particular management strategy. One of them is when you want to achieve a temporary solution. Nursing is a fast-paced field with fast-paced working environments and sometimes the best solution to a problem is to come to a quick solution where both sides are partially happy and come back to the issue at another time when it can be further discussed. Another reason to use compromising as a management strategy is when goals are only moderately important. It may be more beneficial to you and your time if you compromise with someone, especially if the issue is not of utmost importance. There are also certain times when compromising wouldn't be appropriate or may not work all together. Like if the initial demands of a conflict are too great, then another strategy may have to be used. Also the sincerity of the individuals agreement on the solving of the issue can be questioned, promises may not be kept. But one must keep in mind that things that are more important to you shouldn't be compromised and the importance of a particular conflict should be considered to oneself when using any conflict management strategy.

ediation Resources