Category: Conflict

The Peculiarities of Conflict Resolution

Speaking from experience, a conflict has been part of my daily diet. I have been in the corporate field for 4 years, and I have encountered various and numerous conflicts with my manager and subordinates. Not just petty ones but conflicts that can lead to potential business losses. I have been resolving these using plain intuition and instinct. I was pretty much confident in resolving because I was consistent in saving my company from losses, from burning bridges with the management and my staff, and with the company’s clients. However, the two-day workshop totally changed my perspective on conflict management.

On the first day, it rattled my confidence because it made my realities to myths and my myths to realities. But it made me fully confident when the workshop was concluded. All of us have been using the term conflict probably not daily. However, I’m very certain that we have encountered conflict daily. We might not even notice that we are having conflicts in homes, school, office, while riding public utility vehicles, while paying our due bills, and even in our deep sleep. But how is it really defined? Does conflict really require the use of armed force like the media coin the situation in the Middle East? Does it really need two distinct and separate beings to constitute a conflict? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, conflict is competitive or opposing action of incompatibles or antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) or mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands; the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction.

Meanwhile, the Oxford Dictionary defined conflict as a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one or a prolonged armed struggle or a state of mind in which a person experiences a clash of opposing feelings or needs or a serious incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests. Lastly, the Cambridge Dictionary says that it is an active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or principles or it is fighting between two or more groups or countries. What is common among the definition provided by known dictionaries are disagreement, incompatibility, between persons or groups, opposing feelings, ideas, and opinions. Therefore, there is conflict when there is incompatibility of ideas, feelings, and opinions of at least 2 persons or groups to constitute conflict. It does not require violence, the use of arms nor required any location; hence, conflict can be anywhere even in our most sacred homes! Now that conflict is now defined, what are its effects? How negative can it be? Let’s take for example relationship conflict.

According to research, it can affect one’s health, relationship conflict can negatively affect one’s health in several ways. Portland State University’s Institute on Aging studied over 650 adults over a two-year period and found that ‘stable negative social exchanges’ (in other words, repetitive or prolonged conflict) was significantly associated with lower self-rated health, greater functional limitations, and a higher number of health conditions. This may be due to the impact that stress has on immunity (stress can dampen your immune system), as well as other factors. The important thing to remember is that ongoing conflict really can take a toll on a person’s health. If there is conflict among members of a family, it eases when you know that almost everyone encounters it. Family conflict is very common. Many get awkward and uncomfortable at family gatherings because of difficult relatives. It is not that there is not a lack of love but there is a lack of comfort in dealing with conflict among family members. Whether it’s open conflict over the dinner table or an underlying feeling of discomfort that remains unspoken, family conflict obviously causes a significant amount of stress with a lot of people. Research on social exclusion shows that the pain of loneliness and social rejection is processed by the same area of the brain that processes physical pain. This explains why feeling rejected by a loved one can actually be physically painful. If one is involved in a relationship that includes significant conflict and repeated feelings of rejection, he probably already knows that he is also experiencing physical pain on a regular basis. In real life, conflict is inevitable, and resolving it effectively can often be a pathway to greater understanding between two people, bringing them closer. Relationships in which anger is suppressed and unacknowledged by one or both partners can be unhealthy.

The research found that in couples where one partner habitually suppressed anger, partners tended to die younger; couples in relationships where both partners suppressed anger tended to have the worst longevity. Knowing that unresolved conflict carries such risks can make it tempting to vent any anger we experience, anyway we like, but that’s not always the right approach, either. The way we resolve conflicts can make or break relationships, leaving a person with a life of loneliness, or one rich with social support and love. These conflict resolution skills can help one handle relationship conflict in a healthy way so that a person can get the most out of relationships. As clearly established, conflict creates a negative effect that resonates to one’s health. One cannot neglect the value of health. Thus, on top of its negative effect on health, there is a compelling need to resolve and manage conflicts. According to a management study, conflict is certain; however, the result may be influenced by the way the conflict is managed. The volume and intensity of impending conflict are determined by how the conflict is handled.

Effective conflict management encourages enthusiasm, boosts morale, and stimulates individual and organizational development; while ineffective conflict management produces more conflict and destructively effects the whole organization. Effective conflict management involves the use of an assortment of styles dependent on the conditions of the conflict. The two-day workshop made me appreciate not just conflict resolution, but EFFECTIVE conflict resolution. It made me realize that conflict is inevitable and there is a systematic approach to effectively resolve a conflict. During my younger years, I have been preparing for several job interviews and promotions. I established my answer when faced with the question, “how do you handle conflicts?” I always answer it with a made-up solution by saying, “conflict arises when there is a misunderstanding between two persons. When resolving conflicts, listening is the key to prevent misunderstanding.

One should not raise his or her voice to avoid escalation.” I was too naïve that I stuck with that formula in every interview thinking that it is a fail-proof process. I learned that the first step is always to analyze the imminent conflict. There are 5 tools in analyzing conflicts: ABC triangle, historical timeline, conflict tree, onion or iceberg, and mapping stakeholders. In the ABC method, we must identify the attitudes, behavior, and contradiction because these three are the main ingredients of a conflict. Using the historical timeline, we can trace the relevant events that lead us to the conflict and pinpoint with accuracy the point in time when and where the conflict arose. From there, we can set aside those irrelevant events and dwell further on the most significant event. With the conflict tree, we can also extract the root causes of the conflict and segregate it from the effects so that we can focus more on the former than the latter. The onion ring is akin to peeling an onion that we only make use of the inner part. It emphasizes that the resolution of conflicts requires deep peeling.

The outer layers, which are the position and interest, are only clouds that should be eliminated to identify conflicts arising from the needs of parties. I really appreciate the onion ring because it struck me that conflict resolution is based on the needs of the parties and not on what they say or what they really want. Like the onion ring method, the iceberg method formulates that conflicts appear on its face as the positions of parties. We should dig deeper and identify the aspirations of the parties to resolve such conflict. With the use of conflict mapping, we can identify the relationship of parties and determine whether they have a strong or weak bond. It highlights that the strength of the parties’ relationship is the key to resolving issues. The party with the most and strongest bond should have the largest role in resolving the conflict. I also learned that conflict is not generally solved, resolved or dissolve. It must be transformed so that it can appeal to both parties. Through transformation, we can use solutions that are outside the box to address the conflict. Usually, conflicts have options that are limited to those presented by parties, but with transformation, we can offer another method that is way beyond the parties’ expectations yet provide an effective solution to their problem. I also like to highlight my learnings on the differences in arbitration, mediation, and conciliation.

All along I thought that these terms are similar. They differ in the number of parties, the extent of participation of the third person and the sources of options. In arbitration, parties to a dispute present arguments and evidence to an arbitrator. Then, the arbitrator decides like a judge. In conciliation, parties to a dispute endeavor to reach an agreement using the assistance of a conciliator. He may advise on the content of the dispute or the outcome of its resolution but does not decide or rule. He can make suggestions for terms of a settlement, give expert advice on likely settlement terms, and actively encourage the participants to reach an agreement. Mediation involves a qualified impartial third party. He assists the parties to resolve their differences, but he does not impose solutions. Parties come up with their own solutions to settle the dispute. The mediator only assists parties to agree on some issues and narrow down the issues they do not agree upon. Upon knowing the differences, I appreciate the task of a mediator. I realize that it is not easy to be one.

To be a mediator, one must know how to paraphrase, reframe, prepare. In paraphrasing, one must try to restate briefly the point that someone has just made. It includes reframing by translating positional, toxic comments into neutral, useful comments that focus on interest. Lastly, he must explain the process of mediation and his role, get the background information about the case, build confidence and rapport, and encourage parties to mediate. It is noteworthy that it is not advisable to go into mediation if one party does not agree to go through the process. I shared my learnings to my father and he narrated that he was once a member of the barangay lupon. He settled different conflicts from various parties. He shared that the conflict management workshop I undertook might not be useful now but as a lawyer, this will be the most vital and crucial part in practice. Also, he reminded me that the practice of law is not money making but service. By resolving conflicts extrajudicially, a lawyer can better serve his clients if conflicts are resolved sooner and at the minimum cost. I believe in my father’s wisdom. He was speaking from his credible experience in resolving conflicts outside the court. I should take conflict resolution seriously.

Since the culmination of the workshop, I have been carrying and applying the lessons to my personal conflicts. As a Carolinian, I should be able to put the learnings from the workshop into good use in the years to come. Although I had been resolving conflicts using only my intuition and instinct up to the first day of the workshop, I could say that I am better equipped in resolving conflicts. Although the process takes a considerable amount of time and effort, there is satisfaction in doing so. I should also bear in mind that I should be sensitive in resolving conflicts by understanding the context, the interaction between the intervention and the context, and acting upon the understanding of this interaction, in order to avoid negative and maximize positive impacts. Moving forward, I must apply these meaningful learnings today up to my practice in the field of law bearing in mind the consequences of my words and deeds to my clients.

Dealing with Conflict in the Workplace

After the practical, I realized I could look at conflict from a different point of view – a game of strategy and something to rise above instead of something to just fear. I learnt about ‘The Drama Triangle’ which involves the persecutor, rescuer and victim. The persecutor is someone who only acts in their own interest and plays the dominant role in the drama. Their aim is to punish and they often disregard other people’s feelings to get what they want, i.e. to punish the person they think is to blame. The victim, on the other hand, is someone who is suffering or potentially suffering from the conflict. However, they either do not have the resources to solve their own problem or like to push the responsibility of the problem onto someone else. The rescuer is someone who is concerned for the victim but likes to take over the responsibility of thinking and problem solving. They, intentionally or unintentionally, tend to take on more than their share of their responsibility or do things they do not want to do in order to help other people. As the drama plays out, people can and often change roles (e.g. the rescuer can become fed up and switch to the role of the persecutor). More than one person in the drama triangle can also play the same role. Something important to realize is that there are no winners in the drama triangle, only drama.

In contrast to ‘The Drama Triangle’, ‘The Winners Triangle’ consists of someone who is assertive, someone who is caring and someone vulnerable. Someone who is assertive acts in their own interest by asking for what they want but allows room for negotiation. Someone who is vulnerable is self-aware of their feelings, shows vulnerability but takes responsibility for the problem and is involved in the problem solving. The caring person is concerned for the parties involved but will not take over unless asked and only if they themselves want to help.

The reason I chose this tutorial is this tutorial felt personal to me as I am experiencing some conflict currently in my life. From this tutorial, I realized I often played the role of the victim/ rescuer in the drama triangle which was affecting my wellbeing. Being able to understand there was such a thing as ‘The Winner’s Triangle’ was an eyeopener. I realized I needed to be more assertive by being more confident in myself. I realized unconsciously due to past experiences, I stopped telling people when they made me uncomfortable to avoid potential conflict and was in the mindset of “I just have to suck it up”. It made a lot of sense to me when the drama triangle and the people in the drama triangle were described to be like a pig wallowing in mud who is doing their best to beckon you into the drama to fuel it. And it is difficult but not impossible to rise above it by staying in the winners triangle.

Inability to deal with conflict not only affects a person’s working life, it also affects their personal life and well-being. It often leads to miscommunication, disrupting relationships between colleagues and also with clients. It may also break relationships irreparably. In a veterinary setting, a person who plays the role/ persecutor/ victim would not take responsibility for their mistakes. They either blame it on someone or something else (e.g. the lack of cooperation from other people, the working conditions etc.). The victim role would think ‘Why me? Why does everything happen to me?’ and think because they cannot solve the problem, they will not even try. Either of these roles will not learn from their mistakes and will not progress far into their career. It also impairs their ability to self-reflect which is a day one competency for vets. A rescuer who takes on too much at any one time might quickly find themselves exhausted which is not great for their well-being. All the roles in the drama triangle impairs a veterinary surgeon’s ability to work. One of the examples discussed during my tutorial was when a fellow employee was isolated from work opportunities in the vet clinic.

Trying to avoid conflict by enduring it will only cause people to think they can walk all over you and make it difficult for the situation to stop. Not standing up to them / seeking help from elsewhere allows the bullying culture to perpetuate. It is not easy and may not always be the obvious thing to remember when we are in the middle of a conflict, but we are never alone and there are always people or organisations like VetLife and the Veterinary Defence Society should we need them. We are seldom alone – something I need to remember to bear in mind!

Conflict Sensitivity and Creative Conflict Transformation: Appropriate Dispute Resolution

We’ve all been in situations where we suddenly find ourselves flying in a fit of rage, fueled by uncontrollable emotions and frustration. Things start to escalate, and before you know it, you end up uttering hurtful words and doing things that will leave a permanent scar on what once were healthy relationships. To make things worse, after everything has been said and done, we try to justify our original feelings and actions out of pride. I found myself in the exact same situation as a child. I remember being bullied in elementary school, and instead of taking the high road and being the better person, I retaliated. I could vividly recall the time that I pushed my classmate into a puddle because he was taunting and mocking me. I let my rage take over and I became the very thing that I detested.

I started to realize the impacts of my actions when I grew older, and I found that fighting fire with fire was not necessarily the best approach to such situation.

Fast forward to 2019, and I am already in my second year in law school taking up the course Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) under Dean Joan S. Largo. One of the course’s requirements was for us to attend a seminar entitled “Conflict Sensitivity and Creative Conflict Transformation: Appropriate Dispute Resolution” with Mr. Cesar H. Villanueva. Other than modules on conflict management in the workplace for my Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management classes for my Master’s in Business Management degree, this is the only other course on conflict transformation that I have ever attended.

I thought that the seminar would be about the different laws and procedures surrounding alternative modes of resolving conflicts in the country, because other aside from the lupong tagapamayapa, I did not have that much knowledge on ADR laws and procedures. I thought that it would walk us through the various procedural aspects of helping clients resolve their conflicts and disputes, in the hope of avoiding lengthy litigation in court. However, it turned out that the seminar did not focus on procedures. Instead, it aimed to walk us through the various means and methods of dealing with conflict, be it legal or not.

As a member of Transcend Philippines following the movement set by Sociologist Joahn Galtung, Mr. Villanueva adopted the former’s definition of conflict as “a process through which two or more actors (parties) try to pursue incompatible goals while trying to undermine the goal-seeking potential of the others.” This definition of conflict made me realize how I have been improperly approaching conflict management.

In most situations, there are two underlying factors to conflict, the first being the substantive elements or the disagreement between goals and ideas, and the latter being the personality dynamics between parties to the disagreement. Instead of focusing on incompatible goals or ideas, more often than not, I attach the disagreement and incompatibility with the person/s proposing the said goals or ideas.

During the first breakout session in the first day of the seminar, I realized that I was not the only one who improperly managed conflict. I was fortunate enough to become part of a diverse group composed of not only second year law students, but also fourth year law students. As we were discussing our own personal experiences regarding conflict management, at one point in our lives, we were all guilty of letting conflict between personalities dominate, instead of focusing on incompatible goals and ideas. Call it human nature, perhaps. All of us needed to be reminded about how to properly deal with conflicts, especially since we all share that common dream of becoming Carolinian lawyers someday.

That being said, Mr. Villanueva told all of us at the seminar venue that we should not be afraid of conflict. According to him, conflict is but normal. It has its own life cycle, often appearing, disappearing, and then reappearing after it tapers down. What all of us should be mindful about, though, is how we approach conflict as we become embroiled in it.

To that end, we were introduced to the different tools that we could use in managing conflicts, which we had to apply and present using a real life conflict situation in another breakout session. Our group focused on the conflict between the government, through the Land Transportation and Franchise Regulatory Board (LTFRB), traditional public utility vehicle (PUV) operators, the commuting public, and Angkas, an on-demand, app-based motorcycle ride-hailing service.

To aid in our analysis, we used the Onion Ring and mapped the different stakeholders (Conflict Parties Mapping) to help us better understand the conflict at hand. We found that there is a disconnect between the need for a safe, fast and convenient mode of public transport by the riding public; the need for regulation and safety by the government through the LTFRB; the need for a sustainable means of living by the Angkas drivers; and the need to limit competition by traditional PUV operators.

In the end, it was all about the balancing of interests among the various stakeholders, rather than personality issues among them. However, through the conflict parties mapping, we found that there is a common link among all stakeholders that would connect, balance, and neutralize the conflicting interests – and that is the riding public. Mr. Villanueva emphasized how important it is to find a common party that would foster understanding between the conflicting goals and ideas of the other parties in the conflict parties map.

The identification of this common party would be the starting point from which all parties would be able to properly discuss among themselves how to better resolve or manage the conflict at hand. In Mr. Villanueva’s simple example, he showed us how the grandmother was able to resolve the conflict within the family between the first generation siblings as well their respective children. This is because the grandmother played an important role in each of their lives, and they have nothing but utmost respect for the grandmother which made all of them open to a dialog with each other, at the behest of the grandmother.

Aside from identifying parties, in the afternoon session of the said seminar, Mr. Villanueva introduced us to the chocolate exercise. He called upon two of our classmates from EH403, Kara and Horeb. He then presented to them 1 piece of Ferrero Rocher chocolate, after which he asked Kara and Horeb how they would be able to determine which of them would get the said piece of chocolate. It took Kara and Horeb some time before they were able to come up with a solution, but in the end, they decided to just split the chocolate so that each of them would be able to get their share.

After the sad activity. Mr. Villanueva discussed to us the different outcomes that might arise from the said chocolate dilemma. He first posited the idea that one party, either Kara or Horeb, would prevail over the other. In that scenario, only one party would get to eat the chocolate, and the other one would be left unsatisfied. In the possible scenario, both Kara and Horeb would walk away, and neither party would get to eat the chocolate, leaving both of them unsatisfied. In the third scenario, which was the one done by Kara and Horeb, both parties would come up with a compromise, with each one getting a half of the chocolate, leaving both of the somewhat, but not fully, satisfied.

Mr. Villanueva then introduced us to a fourth possible scenario, which, according to him, would be the most ideal one. In that scenario, which he labelled as transcendence, in order for both Kara and Horeb to be fully satisfied, they would get another piece of chocolate. He labelled this as transcendence because it goes beyond the normal compromise, which, more often that not, would not really lead all parties to be fully satisfied.

In the first breakout session of the second day of the seminar, in order to further exemplify transcendence, Mr. Villanueva asked the groups to come up with a possible solution to two families with a mango tree growing between their respective boundaries. He asked the groups to think outside of the box and come up with a solution that would make both families fully satisfied.

Our group’s resolution involved not just both families, but the entire community by proposing the idea of coming up with a cooperative, the majority of which is owned by both families, and at the same time, involve unproductive members of the community so as to give them proper jobs. Once enough profit is generated, we proposed to further expand the business by planting more trees, thereby expanding the plantation, and venturing into related products where the mango fruit would be utilized, like making purees or drying the mangoes and selling them to nearby groceries.

That, for us, was our very own take on transcendence, where we aimed to go beyond simply dividing the mango fruits between two families. In doing so, we had hoped not only to make both families happy, but also to involve and benefit the entire community. Transcendence involves going beyond a simple compromise. It involves transformation which Mr. Villanueva described as the creation of a new reality. Quoting Johan Galtung, to transform means “means the discourse of the conflict has changed where vision has served as a reference point, a new anchor…. a new reality of the conflict is created.” From the simple mango tree problem, he hopes that we could translate our learnings into our actual practice as future Carolinian lawyers.

That being said, Mr. Villanueva cautioned us into being overly too eager and forcing transcendence and transformation even when the situation is not yet ripe for the said approach. According to him, there is always an appropriate time for everything. As future Carolinian lawyers, we should not force our clients to immediately solve the dispute, when both parties are clearly not ready. We have to wait until both parties are ready to face the issues and settle their dispute as there are times when either one or both of the parties are still too emotionally unstable to face the issue. He further said that forcing them to settle while at this state will only worsen the situation.

To further make his point, he told us a real life story which involved the lawyer of the person who was involved in a hit-and-run incident. According to his story, there was a boy who was killed in a hit-and-run incident. Later on, the perpetrator, who was a teenager, felt guilty and wanted to come clean to the authorities and talk things out with the victim’s family. The teenager and his family wanted to apologize to the family of the victim and make amends. As a mediator, he was requested to see the victim’s family and talk things out with them. However, since the incident was still fresh and too traumatizing for the family of the victim, they refused to talk and settle at that moment.

Mr. Villanueva, understanding the sentiments of the victim family, agreed to let it go for the moment to give them time to heal from that traumatizing and hurtful incident. He told us that it took more than a year before the victim’s family agreed to talk it out with them. He went further to say that the grieving period for the family might not be the same for others. What may take a year for one may only take a few months for others. It is, according to him, a case to case basis.

As future Carolinian lawyers and conflict mediators, we should recognize the fact that conflict exists in life, and that we should always show everyone respect. We must not be all too eager to win cases for our clients (and collect appearance fees in the process). We must always show compassion not only to our clients, but also the other parties that our clients are in conflict with.

“You may have won the case, but you have not resolved the conflict.” – Cesar H. Villanueva

The above quote is what struck me the most during our two-day seminar. Mr. Villanueva was just telling us about how a certain case involving two brothers and their inheritance that dragged on for twenty hears was finally decided, and how the losing brother killed his brother just days after the decision was rendered. Indeed, lawyers may win their clients’ cases, but not all lawyers are willing to actually take a proactive stand in resolving conflicts involving their clients.

As far back as my first day of class in Legal Profession under Judge Francisco A. Seville Jr., he always stood firm in telling us that lawyering is more than just an occupation, that it is a profession. The practice of law, as Judge Sevilla would always put is, involves “a group of men (or people, if we would like to be more politically correct) pursuing a learned art, in the spirit of public service.”

As law students and as future lawyers, we have the challenge of changing the mindset that some people have over lawyers, that lawyers are simply out to milk their clients of money, and that lawyers end up getting bad guys off the hook.

Solving Conflict in the Workplace with Team Building Activities

Lance Best is the CEO of Barker Sports Apparel and after speaking with his company’s general counsel, Nina Kelk, he has decided that he has a problem. His CFO, Damon Ewen, and his Head of Sales, Ahmed Lund, have been at odds for quite a while. However, the tip of the iceberg was the 360 – degree reviews. While these reviews were supposed to be anonymous, it quite was obvious to everyone who made the negative comments about Damon Ewen, it was Ahmed Lund. In retaliation, on Ahmed’s 360-degree reviews, Damon also posted some comments complaining about Ahmed’s work style. Lance does not know what to do with both his CFO and his Head of Sales. Both are very good at their jobs and while the conflict hadn’t had a big impact on the company so far, it might in the future.

A new problem has opened up where Ahmed has promised new samples for the Clarkson account, but the order exceeds the limit on the accounting set and Damon will not sign off on the order. After speaking with Nina Kelk, Jhumpa Bhandari, Damon Ewen and his father, Eric, Lance has decided that he needs to do something about the ongoing conflict with Damon and Ahmed. While conflict in the workplace can be normal and some can say healthy, in this case, Lance and others around has had enough. In an effort to combat the toxic work environment that is being caused by both Damon Ewen’s and Ahmed Lund’s big personalities, I recommend that Lance Best, the CEO of Barker Sports Apparel, have both teams do team building workshops, activities or exercises. Having both Damon’s and Ahmed’s team do team building activities would be beneficial to the two teams and the company. The common / main goal of Damon and Ahmed is to make the revenues of Barker Sports increase. However, with both of their departments always at odds, it is really hard to get both team leaders to agree.

Without teams working together, employees restricted to working alone, however, with team building employees can collectively come together to work as a team. With working as a team, employees can learn to respect and support each other’s ideas, and build trusting relationships with each other. (Fapohunda, 2013). One can infer that if both Damon’s and Ahmed’s team start doing team building exercises, both teams will start to respect and trust each other enough to build relationships. With doing this, when both teams are working on a project together, they can support one another and learn how to communicate better with one another. Communication is key. It goes hand in hand with every relationship. One can comment that the biggest problem between Damon and Ahmed’s team is their lack of communication. Because Damon and Ahmed both have very different personalities, they are constantly in conflict because they do not know how to communicate with each other.

To try and solve the issue that Damon’s and Ahmed’s team have with communication, I recommend that Lance has both teams play a game. Brian Cole Miller’s book, Quick Team-Building Activities for Busy Managers: 50 Exercises That Get Results in Just 15 Minutes offers many different types of games that tackles different type of issues such as communication, listening, influencing, connecting as in getting to know each other more, cooperation as in working together as a team, and many more. One activity that would really help Lance in getting Damon and Ahmed to cooperate more is the game called “But Nothing (Ideas)”. The purpose of this game is that participants of the game will learn how communication and creativity can be stifled when using the phrase “yes, but..”. Participants will be encouraged to use “yes, and..” instead of “yes, but..” (Miller 2003). With this game, employees can learn the other side feels when their ideas are not entirely accepted.

Employees can step in the other person’s shoes for a little bit and see how the other person is feeling. Including emotions into this game is very important because then participants will then learn how to carefully communicate with someone without shutting them out completely. This exercise will also teach participants how to trust their colleagues. With having both Damon’s and Ahmed’s team do team building exercises, this pegs the question if team building is effective in the workplace. Team building does work. The results from the study suggest that teambuilding does work because it improves the team’s outcomes. (Klein et al., 2009). Role clarification have the largest effect on team building. Role clarification improves communication between team members because it relieves stress that is caused by role ambiguity, which is demands that are placed upon someone who does not expect those said demands. Having role clarifications would increase communications and thus would increase the effectiveness of the team. (Klein et al., 2009). The game, Nothing But (ideas)’s main goal is to increase communicating between team members. With this, the game will make the workplace fun for a day while trying to fix the issue at hand.

Lance Best is the CEO of Barker Sports Apparel and after speaking with his company’s general counsel, Nina Kelk, he has decided that he has a problem. The problem that Best has is that his CFO, Damon Ewen, and his Head of Sales, Ahmed Lund, who have big personalities, are at at odds. What made Lance finally decide to do something about the dispute are the negative 360 – degree reviews that both Damon and Ahmed put on each other’s profile. My recommendation to solve this conflict of big personalities is to have both teams do team building activities. It will teach them how to communicate and trust each other more. With having team building activities, this will show everyone that the CEO cares enough about his employees to try and solve the conflict rather than firing everyone.

Conflict, Influence, and Power Solving

In marriages, conflict naturally occurs during a long period of time as both partners have lost similar interest or challenges individual face in their life together. Conflict is the opposition of incompatible need. In a companionate marriage, it the interdependence that a great expectation will be achieved by both partners needs. In the Conflict theory which suggests conflict is necessary for a couple of relationships. Different roles of men and women during the post-industrial, result of three dilemmas for relationships:

• Individual versus collective interest
• Women’s right versus male entitlement
• “Mine” versus “yours”

These dilemmas exist due to social changes of allows an individual to choose a role model, without a role model each couple will face their own dilemma in their relationship, there are two issues based on personal levels:

Division of labour

The expressive quality of the relationship

The goals in a complicated relationship are not to reproduce but to maintain its intimacy which fighting is affects the balance between individual and couple interest. The problem that men and women identified to have conflict was the performance at a workplace and the income gains affected in a couple’s relationship, not having enough money to enhance the lifestyle that both partner need is an issue they faced. However, equally shared income may not be the solution to the problem, the money is not distributed equally and facing personal debts will result in a fight for “mine” versus “yours” over the money. Sex is a problem which involves emotional expression as the women are not ready but men are demanded that causes physical and emotional fatigue.

Power is the ability to influence, the Conflict theory suggests that in a personal relationship who has resources the other needs has more power. In prehistoric times, women are being reproductive and provide nurturing resources to balance men’s support and physical protection. Later at industrial society, men work to earn money to purchase goods and service for the family which men are overpowered than women. At the time housework become unskilled job people does. The principle of least interest says a person who with the least commitment in a relationship actually has the greatest power, since the person has greater commitment will more likely give to maintain harmony.

Symbolic interactionism suggests what is perceived as fair in a relationship rather than objective measure, it affects the stability of a marriage. Traditionally, in marriage division of labour include paid and unpaid work usually shared by both partner as being fair; the men earn an income for the family, but money outside beside supporting the family will become theirs. Women working at home are being supportive rather productive. According to symbolic interactionism men has greater power by stronger and smart than women and had more money; therefore men were entitled to make decisions in the family. The companionate couples were expected there to be an equal division of labour and equal decision making. During the 1970s, women began working at paid work, as for men they are not doing unpaid work since there is no advantage for them there is not income no interest in doing it. The balance between men and women did not change quickly which the roles are differences in power. There are studies shows several trends in the current century in Canada in the division of labour in marriage:

• Women are working more time at paid employment and fewer hours at unpaid domestic work
• Men are working long at both paid and unpaid domestic work
• Total hours spent on housework, childcare, and shopping has declined.

As a result division of labour becomes more equal in Canadian marriage. Additionally, the total number of hours spent on paid work has increased, less domestic work couples are work for, the standard is relaxed and services and products is being used such as housecleaners, cooking, and time-saving appliances.

In resolving conflict, systems theory explains if individuals will change their own behaviour when conflict occurs differences, both partners will have to adjust their behaviour to maintain stability in the relationship. There are several strategies identified as the managing conflict in relationships:

• Express opinions, positions, and openly and honestly
• Remain focused on the problem
• Try to understand the other partner’s perspective
• Recognize own influence on the interaction and other person’s response
• Response with a positive attitude
• Be willing to compromise and negotiate a solution will satisfy both partners

In conclusion, conflict is common in marriages and the powers that people have in money or other forms is the problem people fight, to solve the conflict both partners should discuss what is the main problem that leads to the fight, and discuss how the problem is changed next time and for a long-lasting marriage.

Underlying Causes of Conflict Using the Pillar Method

The conflict transformation entails moving relations that sustain violence, whereas conflict management approaches endeavors to control and contain conflict, and therefore, conflict resolution models are steered towards shifting resolution towards affirmative results. The implications to unveil the main causes of conflict is to envision the flow of social conflict, building affirmative change procedures and mitigating conflict to enhance justice (Lederach, 2015). In day to day interactions, human beings are exposed to various types of conflicts, for instance political violence, economic conflict as well as social conflicts which arise due to extensive human interactions. This paper will explore the triggering factors that cause conflict using the pillar model.

People clash over various issues and therefore, conflicts are said to be multifaceted and are caused by various agents, however, it is important to discern between diverse types of causes, motivating factors and outcomes, as well as distinguishing sources of strain or problems that affect people at the local, national, regional and global levels.

The structural bases of conflict are the systematic or protracted sources of violent clashes that have become norms, systems and order of the present society. The proximate causes of conflict or the immediate causative agents of violence are more current and alter the prevailing conditions (Lederach, 2014). Therefore, the immediate causes of the conflict are said to have a potential of heightening the structural sources of disagreement and further enhancing the escalation of violent conflicts.

Ultimately, the underlying causes of conflict are mostly said to emanate from political matters, that entail power struggle, contestations between the two parties in conflict and determining the institutions for the benefit of other people in the community (Lederach, 2015). The original causes of conflicts involve the similar factors that escalate hostilities, for instance fights may have both social and political motivations thus developing disincentives for peaceful coexistence between conflicting parties. It essential to adopt sequential, appropriate and dynamic models when participating in conflict analysis to determine how the conflicted developed from the initial stage.

Conflict evaluation toolboxes do exclude express classes to investigate explicit fanaticism, but where possible it will develop through examination of the antagonistic parties, causes and elements. As the improvement plan widens to incorporate radicalization, policymakers are progressively connecting the latter with the drivers of contention in explicit contexts. While analysis is constrained, delayed discussions on event of war center on push and force elements, for example, the job of individual relationships; convictions, qualities and feelings; stories of history; dismissal of a framework; among others (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). Numerous studies expresses feeble proof for some usually expressed impacting factors that causes conflict, for instance, poverty; religious differences; inefficient peace campaigns.

The extension inquiry lingers on the present day conflict elements and patterns. Dynamics emanates from the association of the contention profile, main characters and causes, and they can be activated by occasions. Concentrating on elements offers a chance to determine whether, why and how the contention is rising, heightening, diminishing, spreading, and contracting, in stalemate.

The conflict analysis focuses on the main causes of conflict in the bid have the capacity to recognize potential episodes of clashes. The possibility of the disposition of a contention identifies with how individuals are changed by a contention or the vitality of a contention. Many fights are believed to expand focus around the main procedures by methods for which to solve issues in a remarkable way that pioneers activate around them, and recognizing progressive opportunities that may help break cycles of conflicts (Lederach, 2014), as opposed to previously, creating typologies of issues that deepen struggles. Investigation of elements of clashes guarantees war evaluation does deliver point by point records as well as rather a comprehension of the elements and the communication of the distinctive components.

Triggers are occasions, or the expectation of occasions, that can alter the power or course of violent clashes, for example; races, financial emergency and cataclysmic events. Various situations portray conceivable envisioned fates and additionally recount to the narrative of how such fates may come to be productive. Through examination of the potential future communications of the contention profile, conflicting parties, causes and elements, various unique and contending situations can be created (Lederach, 2015). These can be confined as best cases, center case, assuming the worst possible scenario, doubtful cases or business as usual situations that are normally surroundings of what is ideal, or will rely upon the object of concentrate and the point of view of the scientist, for instance, regardless of whether the goal is dependability or supportable harmony. However, they can be encircled around story accounts, for instance in an examination about planned decisions in political conflicts.

In the post-Cold War period, Lederach notices that most armed clashes are prevalent in poverty stricken areas, creating portions of the world. Many of the contentions are inside and mostly internationalized, meaning that they are battled between communities situated inside the boundaries of one state, however different states are influenced by resistance developments located inside their states, causing refugee problem, or weapons and different assets spilling out of their states to the state where the war is found (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008). The contentions are portrayed by profound establishments and long-standing hostilities that are strengthened by large amounts of viciousness and direct encounters of atrocities. The peacemakers test is to devise methodologies to end wars and continuing compromise in these partitioned social orders.

Conflicts are essentially characterized by differences between individuals based on divergent views and ideas. To develop communication breakdown between conflicting parties who have contrary objectives, insufficient resources, and obstruction from others in endeavor to accomplish their goals (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). As it normally happens because of our association with others and because of our human subjectivity, what is vital is the manner by which we manage the contention that emerges.

There have been various ways to deal with discords, three of which are Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation. Peace promotion is by large extend is concerned with long-standing clashes, and has to do with the manner in which individuals handle, or oversee wrongs done to them. Peace making alludes to a procedure that will be attempted for an inconclusive timeframe and may not result in goals attainment, and is fundamentally containing and constraining the contention (Lederach, 2014). Negotiations, however, alludes to settling a contention so that the two groups are satisfied, urging them to move from pessimistic attitude towards a constructive circumstance. Further, it incorporates various techniques for improving a circumstance of contention, or expelling strife. Under the umbrella of Conflict Resolution, we discover communication, intervention and strategy as Conflict Resolution is frequently reliant on outside parties coming in to help in the goals procedure. Finally, conflict transformation endeavors to change the positions and impression of the differing parties while improving their correspondence, managing the purposes behind the contention, and at last, changing clash smoothly.

Contemporary clashes require more than the reframing of positions and the distinguishing proof of win-win results. The structure of communities and connections might be implanted in an example of conflictual connections that reach out past the specific site of contention (Lederach, 2014). Conflict transformation is in this way a procedure of connecting with and changing the connections, interests, talks and, if fundamental, the constitution of the society that underpins the continuation of savage clash.

In our ordinary settings we experience social clashes when an interruption happens in the normal engagements of our connections. As struggle develops, we stop and pay heed that something is not right. The relationship in which the trouble is emerging ends up convoluted, challenges and easy as it once seemed to be. We rather again fully trust things, yet we invest more noteworthy time and vitality to translate what they signify. As our correspondence turns out to be increasingly troublesome, we believe that it is increasingly hard to express our observations and sentiments. We additionally assume that it is increasingly hard to comprehend what others are doing and saying and it may create situations of uneasiness and tension (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). This is frequently joined by a developing feeling of practicality and dissatisfaction as the contention advances, particularly if no solution seems forthcoming.

Far from introducing a serene period with the end of the Cold War, the 1990s were set apart by the new wonders of postmodern wars, most of which have appeared as ethnic clashes, internal feuds in light of the politicization along the blame lines of nationality. The reactions to these fierce clashes depended on the formation of supportive interventions. Since September eleventh and the beginning of the worldwide war on psychological warfare, politicization along religious and civilization blame lines has risen into the frontal area. The new postmodern war, in which the killing of regular citizens is the primary methodology for all parties, outperforms the established present day war in multifaceted nature and has demonstrated impervious to customary methodologies of settling armed clashes.

How to de-escalate conflict

The concept of conflict resolution using transformative methods was initially introduced by Paul Lederach, and it thus lays down structures of resolving a conflict a transformative way. Over the years, the field of peacebuilding study and policy practice has greatly shifted focus to local practice. To de-escalate conflict; refers to the approaches of conflict resolution where local actors must be in the fore-front towards the peace building initiative. The theoretical frameworks have essentially influenced the liberal peace concept (Lederach, 2015). Additionally, the conflict transformation focused on the peace resolution theories has provided direction for local backing. Lederach’s theory of conflict transformation presents inclusive methodologies for peacebuilding that is conflict transformation. Transformation entails long-term peace-building contribution to inspire social change, helping to build a just and sustainable reconciliation beyond and post the conflict.

The customary way approach of driving negotiation depends on a successful comprehension of the conflict, where there is a positive and fixed measure of assets that must in some way or another be designated. Conflicting parties have objectives, and must give in on certain focuses for the objectives to favor all parties. The language of this approach is basically favorable to both parties (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008); unintentional clashes, based on legal strategies including control coercion, dangers, feigns, camouflage, and bargain towards the center.

The need for an alternative, and more sophisticated methodology, for a progressively conflict analysis and resolution is yet in addition for an increasingly intricate practice, made clear by the perseverance of violent clashes over the previous decades, and has prompted the advancement of options, common, ideological methodologies of peace promotion, compromise or strife change, which have gained noticeable worth since the end of the Cold War.

There are various reactions one can have in Conflict Management. A number people respond to conflict viciously, with war, psychological oppression, decimation, and so on. There are likewise peaceful strategies for managing contentions, which are progressively basic in our daily lives. The five fundamental methodologies that we will discuss are; Competing, Avoiding, Accommodating, Compromising, and Collaborating. We can utilize any of the five methodologies, as a whole or an assortment of approaches to manage struggle (Lederach, 2014). Nonetheless, individuals will in general utilize a portion of the methodologies substantially more than they use others.

Competing

The contending approach can be summed up by the individual’s people’s resolution to do things their own way. Some methodologies received in this model are to contend, control, outmaneuver pressure and combat the other individual to accomplish your objectives. They are eager with discourse and information gathering. The characteristics of contenders are tyrant, and compromised by contradiction; they endeavor to maintain business as usual, and respond in the midst of emergency. Each contender anxious for his or her objectives and rarely care for the association with the other individual.

Maintaining a strategic distance

Setting a tactical distance from methodology utilizes the techniques of dodging, denying, disregarding, pulling back, postponing, and wishing just to trust and enquire. Dodgers want to be with other individuals who will sustain a strategic distance from issues of conflict too. They decline to share or give information that can help to manage discords. A few qualities of avoiders incorporate lack of involvement, bashfulness, the tendency to lecture, and a plan to face the hardship; they discover discourses and gathering life meddling, and they are somewhat disorganized and unfocused (Lederach, 2014). Individuals who keep away from struggle and Conflict Management have a predicament, as the avoider has both a less concern for his or her association with the other parties, and low association to local objectives as well. Individuals who take part in this conduct do not have the foggiest idea how to determine struggle or proceed in important connections after conflicted has escalated.

Accommodating

The accommodating methodology can be summed up in the phrase; “whatever you state”. The accommodator utilizes techniques to concur, pacify, or compliment the other individual, and wants to be in struggle with other people who drive their sentiments so the accommodator just needs to yield so as to deal with the contention. Like the dodger, the accommodator declines to discourse or share information. The qualities of an accommodator can be summed up by their inefficient interactions, and their uncertain conduct or frame of mind; they are effectively influenced, the need to satisfy everybody, and enable dialogs to float. Accommodators will in general have less association to objectives and a high care for their relationships with the individual that they are in conflict with.

Compromising or settling conflict

The trading off methodology can be condensed with the expression; “I will abandon my stand if you do the same”. The compromiser utilizes methodologies, for example, dealing, diminishing desires, isolating wanted accomplishments so that each party gets even, and finding some equitable ground. Compromisers like to work with individuals who bargain or suit. The compromiser endures the trading of perspectives, despite the fact that he or she discovers the awkwardness of the situation. A few attributes of the compromiser are mindful however liberal and he or she asks others not to be excessively open or frank (Lederach, 2014). The compromiser has discovered a mid-route balance between care for the relationship and meeting individual objectives. The compromiser hopes to win a few contentions and lose others.

Collaborating

The collaborating methodology implies to the idea of working together. This can be outlined in the phrase; ‘My inclination is, what your decision is?’ The colleague utilizes techniques, for example, gathering data, looking for alternative choices, talking transparently, and furthermore inviting contradictions. Teammates like to work with individuals who team up or bargain (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008). They will in general spotlight on data gathering, and their qualities for the most part incorporate preparing, exchanging words, being empowered by debate, and being available to change and development. Partners have a high care for both individual objectives and for connections, and would like to result in a success – win situation.

Application conflict of de-escalation models

Contending

The contending approach is regularly fitting when a crisis looms, when you are certain that you are correct and being correct could easily compare to safeguarding connections, or the issue is paltry and others do not generally mind what happens (Lederach, 2014). This methodology is wrong when joint effort has not yet been endeavored, collaboration with others is vital, it is utilized routinely for most issues, or when the sense of pride of others is unnecessarily lessened.

Avoiding the other party

The keeping away from the conflicting partner methodology is frequently fitting when the issue is minor, the relationship is immaterial, time is short and a choice is not important, and you have little power yet wish to obstruct the other individual (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). The staying away methodology is ineffective when you care about the relationship and the issues included, when shirking is utilized routinely for most issues, when negative sentiments may wait, and when others would profit by minding showdown.

Cooperating

The obliging methodology is ideal to utilize when you experience an issue you do not generally think about, you are feeble yet have no desire to keep the other individual from accomplishing their objectives, or you understand you are incorrect (Lederach, 2014). This methodology is improper when you are probably going to harbor disdain therefore, and you utilize this routinely so as to pick up acknowledgment, which will result in wretchedness or an absence of sense of pride.

Settling

This methodology is best utilized when participation is imperative however the time or assets are constrained, when looked with a stalemate and the best way to conquer it is to agree to a not exactly perfect arrangement, and when endeavors to work together will be misjudged as driving (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008). This methodology is least suitable when finding the most imaginative arrangements conceivable is basic, or when you cannot live with the results.

Teaming up

Teaming up works best when the issues and relationship are both critical, participation is vital, an inventive end is imperative, and sensible expectation exists to address every one of the worries. This methodology is frequently unseemly when time is short, the issues are imperative, you are over-burden, and the objectives of the other individual are not right (Lederach, 2014).

As recently expressed, Conflict Resolution envelops exchange, intervention, and strategy. Discretion for the most part alludes to global tact in which specialists in the field attempt and discover an answer for a contention that will be worthy to the two communities or nations on issues of financial aspects, war, harmony, and so on. Intervention is important when at least two communities, states, or people have a question about a specific theme, and utilize fair-minded, proficient go between to attempt and improve correspondence and exchange between the gatherings to go to an understanding (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). Arrangement is a type of exchange used to determine a contention in which favorable circumstances and disservices are talked about to attempt and come to understanding, and induce the other party to concur with you on the most ideal result for your gathering, or the two gatherings. Compromise can shift crosswise over societies as the closeness of an outsider expert or outsider believed individual can be outside experts, or inward religious or network pioneers. Conflict Resolution methodologies, for example, arrangement, intercession and tact are best utilized when a snappy arrangement is required and there is no critical connection between the clashing parties.

References

1. Austin, A., Fischer, M., & Ropers, N. (2013). Transforming Ethnopolitical Conflict: The Berghof Handbook. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
2. Bercovitch, J., Kremenyuk, V., & Zartman, I. W. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
3. Lederach, J. (2015). Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Clear Articulation Of The Guiding Principles By A Pioneer In The Field. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
4. Lederach, J. P. (2014). Reconcile: Conflict Transformation for Ordinary Christians. Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press (VA).

The Aspects of Group Conflict

Sheriff’s experiment and study of inter-conflict formed the major base for the study of intergroup conflict. This experiment which he conducted made him to be the founder and father of social judgments theory which has been researched by any sociologist and psychologist to comprehend on the finding which he made. In this article the profound article is based on three major ideologies of how ego involvement determines the kind of message acceptance or rejection in accordance to cognitive level (Sherif, 1956).

On the study conducted by Cohen and Inskos about three inter group perception on out-group, objective perception and intergroup showed that different people perceived information differently. In this regard, they discovered that the case of prisoner’s matrics obtained different perception from the three groups (Cohen and Insko, 2008).

This hence formulated for more acceptance in the out-group empathy than in the rest. This was majorly because people with high level of guiltiness showed low cooperation in comparison with those with low prejudgment. In his book he found out that, it was important to identify and describe individual and communicate a message with persuasion either verbally or non-verbally. In this regard, message communication to a group of people involved a perception of good reception or rejection by an individual (Fine, 2004). He disclosed that ego is a major contributor to message reception as it determines through first prejudgment of the message and focusing if it has some personal sense before accepting or rejecting it. In his persuasive ideology on individuals he identified that individuals will judge the message from the set at which they receive it either far away or close relating to them and this influences perception of the message (Sherif, 1956).

According to Cohen and Inskos out-group relationship can help solve the problem of individual and group conflict and historical ideological difference which brings conflict (Cohen and Insko, 2008). On this note, conflict such as those of Muslims and Jews and Protestants and Catholics can be hopefully solved by indulging in groups with history of ideological indifference.

References

1. Cohen, T. R., & Insko, C. A. (2008). War and peace: Possible approaches to reducing intergroup conflict. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 87-93.
2. Fine, G. A. (2004, December). Review Essay: Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 663-666). Springer Netherlands.
3. Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Readings about the social animal, 344-353.

The Effect of Conflict on Access to Education

Education has been an integral factor contributing to the development of humankind since the outset. For ages, the drive to learn more about the surroundings and our curiosity has prodded us to seek education. Today, schooling has become an intrinsic part of a man’s life and education is being known as a basic right in numerous countries around the globe.

However, in many of the world’s poorest countries, armed conflict persists to wreck basic school infrastructure, hopes, and ambitions of children. While the number of primary aged children without access to education has markedly dropped in recent years (from 60 million in 2008 to 57 million in 2011), the benefits of this progress fail to reach these conflict-affected states, where more than half of the world’s primary-aged children out of school are estimated to live in.

In this report, I intend to analyze how conflict impacts access to education in countries around the world. For the convenience of this study, conflict can be divided into two wide topics: Internal conflicts and external conflicts. The definition of the word terrorism itself entails a sense of conflict, as one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. This has given rise to multiple interpretations of the term.

However, it can be broadly defined as “the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim”.

In recent years, terrorism is becoming more widespread and it is affecting the rudimentary right to education. In many countries, schools have become “instruments of war” as the frequency of violent attacks on school children and staff have ramped up. According to a UN Human Rights Council report published in early 2015, more than 3,600 separate attacks against educational institutions, teachers, and students were recorded in 2012 alone. Schools in at least 70 different countries were attacked between 2009-14. Though it was published 4 years ago, the study was conducted over a duration of 5 years and therefore helps understand the general pattern and severity of attacks. Seeking and providing, an education has, for many children and their teachers, become a decision that may cost them their lives.

The massacre at Peshawar, Pakistan in 2014, for example, witnessed the burning alive and murder of 132 children and nine of their teachers. Access to good education is being compromised in conflict-stricken countries due to educational facilities, students, and teachers being targeted. In a GCPEA study titled ‘Education Under Attack 2018’, an alarming rise in the number of reported incidents in 2013 through 2017 was recorded. The Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA) is a unique inter-agency coalition formed in 2010 to address the problem of targeted attacks on education during armed conflict. The types of attack included the burning, and the bombing of schools and the murder, torture, abduction or rape of teachers & students, amongst others.

One of the reasons to target educational institutions in ‘conflict zones’ is to force acceptance of ‘incompatible ideologies.’ As humans, we practice the freedom to have our own opinions and express them. Occasionally, groups with similar convictions adopt extreme and violent methods to force their beliefs and prejudices on others. In many groups, members hold prejudice against the idea of education. In Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban are a group of people who abide by their own customs and show glimpses of extremism in the way they view education. By imposing the Sharia law, they made sure that the education curriculum was strictly Islamic. The Taliban, therefore, went on to attacking education facilities by arson, hurling grenades, mines, and rockets on school premises; sending death threats to staff and teachers; and killing students. Another one of their ideological stands were against education for girls. The last link in the chain to intimidate the Afghan children, specifically girls, to stay out of the local schools was assaulting them on their way to school. During this time, terrorists who were part of the Taliban resorted to throwing acid on the faces of young girls, sparking fear amongst parents.

6,500 km across in Nigeria, from January to September 2013, some 30 teachers were reportedly shot dead, sometime during class. The Associated Press reported that in a video statement made in July 2013, Abubakar Shekau, leader of the militant Islamist group Boko Haram, threatened teachers, saying: “School teachers who are teaching Western education? We will kill them! We will kill them!”; he also endorsed recent school attacks and claimed that non-Islamic schools should be burned down. Boko Haram, whose commonly used name means ‘Western education is a sin’ in Hausa, has imposed a strict form of Sharia, or Islamic law, in northern Nigeria and partially destroyed or burned down 50 schools in the first seven months of 2013, according to Amnesty International.

This situation brings to light another factor that can incite terrorism, which is to prevent schools from teaching a language, religion, culture or history alien to the particular identity group. This can lead to specific ‘groups of people’, to destroy school infrastructure and threaten the institution and their teaching staff. Take the instance of southernmost provinces in Thailand, where Islamic separatists, who have been fighting government forces since 2004, resent the imposition of the Thai language and Buddhist values in schools. “At lunchtime on December 11, 2012, five armed men arrived at the canteen, separated the only two Buddhist teachers – one of them the female director – from the other staff and executed them with gunshots to the head. “, reports an article by renowned broadcaster Aljazeera. Another article about a recent school attack also states, “Some 160 teachers have been killed and many schools set ablaze in continuing ethnic violence.”

Such incidents have a direct effect on the education condition in the region as most teachers are likely to migrate away from the conflict-stricken region for the sake of their safety. Due to this, local schools fail to provide education to the children, and there can be more detrimental and lasting effects for the future. In the long-term, there will likely be a shortage of teaching staff willing to be appointed in such a dangerous area. Access to education will face the risk of becoming obsolete and the right to education for the local children will continue to be exploited.

Lastly, schools are the most visible signs of government rule in most regions. Therefore, another cause can be to destroy symbols of government control or demonstrate control over an area by an anti-government group. As prominent symbols of government rule, local schools make the perfect target for anti-government terrorist groups.

Terrorist attacks bear huge consequences on the education accessibility of a region. The foremost reason is the fear factor. Post attacks, parents are hesitant to send their kids back to school, fearful that their children or the school might be the next target. Understandably, staff and teachers who have witnessed such terror and have seen their fellow colleagues and students being brutally murdered will be reluctant to return. Not only the psychological trauma but also the loss of staff though deaths or injury and loss of learning material & resources become impediments on the path to attain education.

As an immediate measure to resolve this problem, military force and counter-terrorism methods are to be used to wipe out the terrorists or extremist groups. Also, refusing to allow politicians to hold up rallies and refraining from setting up polling stations in or around schools can reduce the image of local schools as being a symbol of the state authority or government. A long-term solution is to raise awareness and educate the general public about equality, respect, and harmony. This, in turn, will reduce the likelihood of children turning into terrorists in the future.

While speaking to UN security council on October 13, 2017, Joy Bishara, a victim of 2014 Boko Haram attack, urged nations to protect education from internal conflicts, “Schools need to be protected. Students need to feel safe. They need to study and work towards their dreams without fear. This is the only way they will be able to go out and make a change in the world. I hope and pray that no more students will go through what I went through.”

Whenever a nation faces an armed conflict, it leads to general unrest across the region. The priority at that point is to defend the borders of the nation and mobilize all possible resources to safeguard the integrity of the country. Under these exceptional circumstances of armed conflict, the focus on education takes a backseat.

In the case of prolonged conflict, school campuses are often evacuated to hoard weaponry or to house armed forces or displaced citizens. In the conflict in Syria, for example, all armed groups involved in the conflict used schools as military headquarters, detention and interrogation centres, military training centres, barracks, and sniper posts. Since the war began, more than 4,000 schools across Syria have been destroyed, damaged or turned into shelters for displaced people.

This induces denied access to education as children are no longer to pursue studies at education institutes. Military use of schools also turns schools into a military object- a more vulnerable target for attack. This not only increases the probability of bombing strikes and deaths of students & staff present at site but also poses a threat to young girls. Evidence shows that the military use of schools increases both the actual and perceived risk of rape and sexual violence by armed actors operating inside or around schools.

Another reason for the decline in access to education for children is the scarcity of resources. An outbreak of war hugely impacts the local economy, agriculture, jobs, and infrastructure. Parents in poor countries, where conflict is most prevalent, struggle to provide their families with basic necessities like food and shelter. In such a scenario, accommodating the expenses of sending their child to school is out of the question.

Moreover, displacement is one of the primary consequences of the nature of contemporary conflict. Displacement can be brought about by two factors: 1. Fleeing due to arrival or anticipation of conflict; 2. Fleeing due to social and economic distraught evoked by conflict.

Over 50% of all refugees displaced during war comprise of people aged below 18. This accentuates the fact that children of educational age are at the highest risk during war. According to an UNHCR report title “Left Behind: Refugee Education in crisis”, only 61% of refugee children are at primary school – compared to 91% of all children across the world. Just 23% of adolescent refugees attend secondary school, compared to 84% globally. Education data on refugee enrolments and population numbers is drawn from UNHCR’s population database, reporting tools and education surveys and refers to 2016. The report also references global enrolment data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics referring to 2015.

Given that refugees spend, on average, 20 years in forced displacement, this is not just a temporary break in children’s schooling. Being out of school’ as a refugee often means missing out on education entirely.

Pauline Rose, director of the global monitoring report, said: ‘ There are more refugees now than there have been since 1994; children make up half of those who have been forcibly displaced. Nowhere is this more painfully visible than in Syria. These girls and boys face disruption of their learning process at a critical time – and the risk of a lifetime of disadvantage as a result.’

Displacement precedes numerous consequences that result in the direction of education. One of them is the loss of possessions. While traversing, loss of documentation (e.g. birth certificates, school-leaving certificates) can hinder enrolling into schools, in some cases for years until the war calms. Additionally, Internally Displaced People (IDP) camps and other gathered settlements may have only makeshift schools without enough teachers. The teachers that were available, however, were barely trained and as the war progresses young male teachers are conscripted into the armed forces. This leads to a shortage of teachers.

To combat this exploitation of the right to education, as an immediate solution, requirements for IDPs to have all documentation for enrolment should be relaxed and fees should be waived. Also, children should be taught certain skills to protect themselves (e.g. during an air strike, or self-defence). On the government’s behalf, schools shouldn’t be occupied for military operations and required laws and policies should be in place. The double-shift system can be introduced as well. This involves local children using the classrooms in the morning while the evacuees would attend school in the afternoon.

Looking at both the issues, it is evident that despite ongoing efforts, the right to education is exploited in most conflict-stricken regions where access to education has become scarce. However, an interesting inference can be made to find a substantial and withstanding solution to this concern – ‘Though education remains a low priority in situations of conflict education itself could be an important stimulant to end conflict.’

As Malala Yousafzai famously quoted, “with guns you can kill terrorists, with education you can kill terrorism. “By replying to injustice and violence with armed forces, a country can hope to control its enemy and prevent further attacks on schools, but by educating its future generation, it can seize the problem from its root.

Thus, education can play a constructive role – whether it be by providing protection in response to crisis and conflict, tackling inequalities in access or bias in education provision, or by contributing to transformation and change as part of peacebuilding processes.

As a student who goes to school every day, ensured my safety, it is easy to take for granted how privileged I am to be able to pursue my education. During the course of conducting research and writing this report, I realized that education is a basic right for all people, regardless of their age, nationality or situation. However, many children of my age have little to no access to education due to the hapless and perilous scenario of conflict.

This analysis has played an integral part in shaping my perspective on the importance of education. It has made me believe that with the education I achieve, I have the power to help others achieve the same and fight against the oppression and injustice they face at such a tender age. It has made me believe, that education is the path to make the world a place where everyone can live in harmony, security, and have the freedom to express opinions without fear of being targeted.

The Minimum Wage Conflict

The minimum wage has been the topic of many recent conversations. This conflict has gained notoriety, and become a key issue in today’s political world. This has been an issue for years as low wage workers have had difficulty providing for themselves and their families on their current minimum wage income. The demand for higher salaries has gained popularity, with many cities implementing their own policy in an attempt to bring people out of poverty and into the middle class. So why is this a conflict? Shouldn’t everyone be in support of people earning higher wages and being able to more comfortably support their families. The answer, and the key to the conflict is that it is not that simple. A raise in the minimum wage could make a significant difference for some employees, and bring them out of poverty and towards the middle class. However, it also has the potential to reduce the number of entry level jobs, it could reduce the number of hours available to work, and shut down businesses if they are unable to afford this increased expense.

One definition of conflict is, “The interaction of interdependent people who perceive opposition of goals, aims, and values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals (Putnam & Poole, 1987).” Therefore, this is a prime example of a conflict and is one that could potentially have a widespread effect. The two primary parties involved are those that believe that a raise in minimum wage would put workers and businesses out and those that believe this would give people an opportunity to advance in status. These two ideas are at opposite from each other, which puts the perception of each party at odds. Therefore, this perception, means that in order for one side to obtain their goal, the opposite is kept from achieving theirs. In today’s political climate, you are either in support or against this argument, which therefore puts you at odds with the opposite side. This is a substantial topic because each party has their own values and needs, which creates divergent attitudes. On one side you have the individuals that need to earn more money in order to support their families, and on the other, you have businesses and consumers that will be paying that difference in order to afford those increased wages. These two parties are interdependent of each other because without one, the other wouldn’t exist.

The employee depends on the business to earn their income. The business depends on the employee to provide the service and the consumer provides the capital to the business to pay the employee. Therefore, even a slight change in a single metric of that equation could make a significant impact on everyone involved, because it is an interdependent cycle formed by all of the key players.

The primary cause of this conflict is simple economics and the desire of employees to be paid a livable wage and the desire of the businesses and consumers to pay a reasonable price. Therefore, this is a conflict of cognitive perception. This is defined as, “Conflict that results from differences in perspective, ideas, or viewpoints about a task or tasks (Maher, 2015, slide 10).”

Increasing the minimum wage would make two significant changes to the current economic system. First, we would see some workers making more money and therefore moving away from the poverty line. This increase in wages would also, in turn, result in more consumers that are able to spend more. Therefore, some businesses would see an increased revenue and be able to pay their employees the higher wage. Contrary, to the first idea, there would be businesses that are unable to afford the higher employee wage. This would result in fewer employees working, or fewer hours worked. Some firms may also transition towards the use of technology as a replacement to the individual. This increase in prices may also drive the consumer to alternative companies, which in turn hurts the businesses and the employee likewise (Kelly, 2019).

This is a very complex conflict and one that cannot be easily solved. Both sides of the issue have very valid points. However, it is not feasible for either side to completely achieve their goal. In order to best serve both parties, then both sides must be willing to remove emotions from the equation and rely on facts and studies of the issue. Then they must be willing to negotiate and find some sort of common ground that can best serve both of their interests. This common ground will require sacrifice and deviations from the values of each side. Something that may not be possible to achieve due to the vastly different viewpoints associated with the issue.

Is Conflict in an Organization a Negative or Positive Force?

Conflict can be defined when individuals or group members incompatibility leads to clashes due to different thought process, attitude, understanding, interests, requirements and perceptions. Each person has different ways on how they perceive and reacts to different situations. Peoples divergences can be explained in terms of ideas, believes, behaviour, needs, roles, religion, politics, relationships, emotions and others. Since all individuals are different and think differently from each other, conflict may arise. Conflicts may result in heated quarrels, physical abuses which leads to disturb harmony, relationships, influence other people and groups negatively. Conflict does not only occur between individuals but also amongst other larger groups such as political parties, religions, different culture ethnics, families, social groups, communities, countries, organisations and between different organisational which may have the same line of business. Conflicts and aggressiveness in general never lead to a good ending. However, I believe that disagreements can be overcome by sorting out these differences through discussions, positive attitude, other people’s intermediations and empathy.

Four common forms of conflict factors within an organisation are explained as follows.

• Task Conflict. Refers to conflicts which arises through the day to day work process and on how to execute organisational procedures and standards. Example. A manager keeps on increasing productivity targets on a weekly basis. However, he doesn’t support his team with extra labour hours or tools to help the employees to achieve their goals. This may lead to conflict in between employees and management.
• Process Conflict. This occurs when employees and groups agree upon goals, targets and projects set by the organisation but disagree on how to move forward to implement.
• Relationship Process. This happens through personal disagreements such as religious believes and ethics. Example. Nowadays the hospitality industry is recruiting more foreign national employees. Employees with the same nationality or cultural background tend to form groups within the workplace. Conflict may arise between groups due to lack of teamwork and communication.
• Legal Process. Conflict may arise between different organisations, example due to pricing, employee poaching, issue with suppliers and marketing strategies which can undermine other organisations.

In an organisation conflict arises through the result of human interaction across formal and informal groups. Conflict in organisations arises between two staff members, groups, management versus subordinates, at management and board level. Basically, through all different levels of the hierarchy. However, not all conflicts may lead to a negative force, most of the time this can lead to opportunities.

Organisations nowadays are aware of the continuous changes in the external environment, technological changes and customer needs. In order to remain competitive and innovative organisations encourage a controlled level of conflict in order to challenge the traditional ways of doing things and to avoid their employees getting stuck into the ‘Status Quo’ Managers utilise conflict techniques amongst other skills to Stimulate conflict and to avoid harmful conflicts through Conflict Resolution.

Stimulate conflict is a constructive way to challenge and motivate employees to think outside of the box and to inject positive attributes of conflicts. Example. A manager sets a meeting for his team to announce changes in working procedures and standards. Although employees might conflict on how to adopt to the new changes, such initiative will encourage them to express their ideas, debate more openly to come up with a way forward, brainstorm, share best practises, discuss, and challenge each other ideas to identify better systems and solutions. Another example, if two competing employees working on the same project disagree on how to market a new product, instead of conflict they can join forces and compromise on a better outcome which will make both ideas shine. They can also refer to a senior employee or manager to help them find common grounds on a final decision.

Conflict resolution. It’s important for managers to have the ability to understand conflict root cause and tackle negative attributes efficiently. If conflict is not resolved it can disturb the organisation operation, demotivate employees, increase turn over and decrease productivity and profitability.

Bad communication, misunderstandings, gossiping, stubbornness, bad attitude, disputes over promotions, disagreements on how to perform tasks, laziness, understaffing, stress, psychological harm, and disrespect are some examples of negative attributes which might initiate conflict at the workplace. It’s up to the managers ability to supress conflicts at an early stage before they escalate further. When faced with such matter’s managers must trigger their leadership traits according to the situation and tackle each case according to employee personality in order to connect with them and to solve any potential conflicts.

Nowadays, attractive hygiene factors are important to employee’s job satisfaction and motivation. Therefore, organisations must ensure to keep conflict within control to ensure employee retention, retain talent which is essential for the organisation growth. If tackled in a good manner, conflicts can lead to better ideas, better understanding, and improve work rapports.

References

1. Managementstudyguide.com. 2020. Understanding Conflict – Meaning And Phases Of Conflict. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 November 2020].
2. Staffing, A., 2020. 6 Workplace Conflicts And How To Deal With Them. [online] Atlas Staffing. Available at: [Accessed 11 November 2020].
3. Griffin, R. and Moorhead, G., 2013. Organizational Behavior. 11th ed. South-Western College Pub; 11th edition (January 25, 2013), pp.15,16,17.