UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

1. Introduction
A conflict-free society has never existed and never will exist. Antagonisms, tensions,
aggressions, stereotypes, negative attitudes and frustrations will always be an integral part of
any society or organization where people have to live and work together. Therefore, conflict is
seen as an inseparable part of people’s life particularly managers, employees, politicians,
academics, religion and community leaders. Globally, escalation of crisis in multiple countries in
the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Ukraine have made conflict management more important
and continued to attract greater attention and combined efforts of different stakeholders. At both
socio-political and economic levels, the roles of EU, AU, ECOWAS, UN, NATO, and ECOMOG
in conflict management continue to remain relevant. At the national level, conflict management
is said to attract greater attention more than ever. Similarly, the adoption of rotational
presidency in Nigeria between the North and the South since 1999, Federal Government of
Nigeria Amnesty Programme for the Niger Delta Militants, several delegations that recently
visited the Niger Delta Region headed by the Vice President of Nigeria, Yemi Osinbajo, to find
lasting solution to the destruction of oil installations in the region. In addition, negotiation with
Boko Haram insurgents that led to the release of 21 abducted Chibok girls, reconciliation
between herdsmen and farmers in some parts of the country are all seen as practical steps
towards conflict resolution in Nigeria. At the organizational level, both at in public and private
settings, conflict management has never been important. The frequent and incessant industrial
conflict in Nigeria has clearly revealed that the conflict management skills of most people in
positions of authority are at best inadequate. The case of ASUU and the Federal Government of
Nigeria under the questionable leadership of Goodluck Jonathan was a clear example among
others.

There is a variety of views about conflict. Some people view conflict as a negative situation that
must be avoided at any cost. Others have an opinion that conflict is a phenomenon which
necessitates management. From this point of view, a conflict is seen as an opportunity for
personal growth and individuals try to use it to his or her best advantage. In organizations and
societies potential conflict could be in practically every decision which the managers or leaders
must make. Coping efficiently and effectively with potential conflicts is one of the most important
aspects of the leader’s or manager’s position. Since conflict is seemingly unavoidable, it is
obviously necessary for leaders and managers to be able to recognize the sources of conflict, to
view its constructive as well as destructive potential, to learn how to manage conflict, and to
implement conflict resolution techniques in a pragmatic way.

2. Definition, Nature and Views about Conflict

Just like most concepts in the social science, the term ‘conflict’ has no single clear definition.
Much of the confusion has been created by scholars in different disciplines who are interested in
studying conflict (Rahim, 2005). Based on the preceding section, it is clear that conflict is
inevitable among humans. When two or more social entities (i.e., individuals, groups,
organizations, and nations) come in contact with one another in attaining their objectives, their
relationships may become incompatible or inconsistent. Relationships among such entities may
become inconsistent when two or more of them desire a similar resource that is in short supply;
when they have partially exclusive behavioral preferences regarding their joint action; or when
they have different attitudes, values, beliefs, and skills. Therefore, Conflict can be defined as
the perception of differences of interests among people (Thompson, 1998). Another

1
definition of conflict would be a process of social interaction involving a struggle over
claims to resources, power and status, beliefs, and other preferences and desires. The
aims of the parties in conflict may extend from simply attempting to gain acceptance of a
preference, or securing a resource advantage, to the extremes of injuring or eliminating
opponents. (Bisno, 1988; Coser, 1968).

In the same vein, Schmidt & Kochan (1972) define conflict as a perceived condition that exists
between parties (individuals, groups, societies, nations et cetera) in which one or more of the
parties perceive goal incompatibility and some opportunity for interfering with the goal
accomplishment of others. Similarly, Robbins & Coulter (2000) refer conflict as perceived
incompatible differences that result in interference or opposition. Baron (1990) after reviewing a
number of definitions of conflict, concluded that although definitions are not identical, they
overlap with respect to the following elements:

a. Conflict includes opposing interests between individuals or groups in a zero-sum (win - lose)
situation;
b. Such opposed interests must be recognized for conflict to exist;
c. Conflict involves beliefs, by each side, that the other will thwart (or has already thwarted) its
interests;
d. Conflict is a process; it develops out of existing relationships between individuals or groups
and reflects their past interactions and the contexts in which these took place; and
e. Actions by one or both sides do, in fact, produce thwarting of others’ goals.

It is important to note that conflict is not an objective set of conditions that exist in the real world;
rather it is a set of conditions that is perceived to exist or that is perceived to be evolving. In
other words, whether the differences exist, or are real or not is immaterial. If people perceive
that differences exist, then a conflict state exists. In addition, the concept of conflict includes the
extreme, the subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of interference, to overt acts such as
strikes, riots, protests and wars.

3. Views about Conflict

Over the years three distinct views have evolved about conflict. The Traditional view (dominant
from the late nineteenth century until the mid-1940s) assumes that conflict is bad, always has a
negative impact, and leads to declines in performance as the level of conflict increases. As
such, conflict must therefore always be avoided. In this view, conflict is closely associated with
such terms as violence, destruction, and irrationality. The response to conflict in the traditional
view is to reduce, suppress, or eliminate it. The manager was responsible for freeing the
organization of any conflict, often using an authoritarian approach. Although that approach
worked sometimes, it was not generally effective; when they are suppressed, the root causes
cannot be identified, and the potentially positive aspects of conflict cannot emerge. This
traditional view of conflict is still widely held because industrial, political and business institutions
that have a strong influence on our society concur with it. This negative view of conflict played a
role in the development of labour unions. Violent or disruptive confrontations between workers
and management led people to conclude that conflict was always detrimental and should
therefore be avoided.

The behavioral or contemporary view, also known as the Human relations view, emerged in the
late 1940s and held sway through the 1970s. It argues that conflict is natural and inevitable in all
organizations and that it may have either a positive or a negative effect, depending on how the
conflict is handled. Performance may increase with conflict, but only up to a certain level, and
then decline if conflict is allowed to increase further or is left unresolved. This approach

2
advocates acceptance of conflict and rationalizes its existence. Because of the potential
benefits from conflict, managers should focus on managing it effectively rather than suppressing
or eliminating it.

The newest perspective, the Interactionist view assumes that conflict is necessary to increase
performance. While the behavioral approach accepts conflict, the Interactionist view
encourages conflict based on the belief that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, too-cooperative
organization is likely to become static, apathetic, stagnant, and unable to respond to change
and innovation. This approach encourages managers to maintain an appropriate level of conflict
enough to keep organizations self-critical, viable, creative, and innovative.

It is pertinent to note that the difference between conflict management and conflict resolution is
more than semantic (Robbins, 1978; Boulding, 1968). Conflict resolution implies reduction,
elimination, or termination of conflict. A large number of studies on negotiation, bargaining,
mediation, and arbitration fall into the conflict resolution category. In a review of literature on
conflict and conflict management, Wall and Callister (1995) made the following comments: “We
raised three of the most important questions in this article: is moderate conflict desirable? Is too
little conflict as dysfunctional as too much? And should leaders, at times, promote conflict to
attain organizational goals? Our tentative answers to these questions are no, no, and no” (p.
545). Wall and Collister’s approach to handling conflict is inconsistent with the recognition of
scholars that organizational conflict has both functional and dysfunctional outcomes. Their
conclusions fall within the realm of conflict resolution, which involves reduction or termination of
all conflicts. This is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we need for
contemporary organizations is conflict management, not conflict resolution. Conflict
management does not necessarily imply avoidance, reduction, or termination of conflict. It
involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and enhancing
the constructive functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness of an
organization.

4. Conflict: A Fact of Life

Conflict is a reality of social life which exists at all levels of society. Hence, it viewed as:

Natural: The assumption here is that conflicts are dynamic and are not inherently negative of
positive. Conflicts are an inevitable part of life – they are part of our daily experiences. There is
potential for conflicts within and around us. Therefore life and conflict are inseparable.

Being about differences: Conflict have to do with differences whether at individual,

interpersonal, intra-group, inter-group, or at broader levels. These differences can be in terms of
values, interests, goals, wishes etc. However, it should be noted that conflicts arise when the
concerned parties, either both of them or at least one of them, feel that their interests, goals,
values, wishes, wants or feelings cannot be met because of the other side that has opposing
views on the same. Having differences is something that is ‘given’; it is how we express such
differences and what we do that can lead to positive or negative experiences for us and those
around us.

Danger and opportunity: As the energy in a fire can build or destroy, the energy in conflicts
can either be constructive or destructive. Conflicts can both be dangerous and beneficial
depending on how the people involved choose to deal with them. If we look at conflicts from a
positive point of view, they can be a source of positive change which would have otherwise not
come. However, conflicts can be and have been a source of misery and suffering, in other

3
instances. In Nigeria we have witnessed cases where political parties or their factions have
engaged in violence due to failure to handle conflicts constructively.

Moving up and down an escalator: Conflicts can also be likened to moving up and down an
escalator in multi-storey building. The escalating or ‘going up’ factors are what contribute
towards turning a conflict into something negative or destructive like a fire which is made to
clear some unwanted bush but runs out of control and ends up destroying things. The de-
escalating or going down factors are the factors that help us to channel the conflict energy into
something positive and constructive.

Something we all know about: We come from different socio-political backgrounds bearing
different interests and values. It is a given fact that we have experienced and dealt with conflicts
in different ways. We may have negative, positive or neutral associations with the term ‘conflict’
but what is clear is that we have all in one way or the other encountered and resolved conflicts
and we will continue to do so. Therefore, it would be helpful if each one of us would start to have
a positive look at conflicts. The way we view conflicts determines how we deal with them, either
from a negative point of view which often lead to destruction, or from a positive point of view
which enables us to get something good and beneficial from a conflict.

Something that is culturally bound: Conflicts and conflict resolution are culturally bound.
There is not one right way to handle conflict and we cannot assume that all people and societies
think and deal with conflicts in the same way. There are, however, a number of fundamental
approaches and responses which are universally useful and we will deal with some of them
later.

A challenge: From the points above it is apparent that conflict and conflict resolution are a
challenge that we all need to deal with in our daily lives be it in our families, religious institutions,
and indeed political parties. Let us always remain prepared to face this challenge whenever we
encounter it.

5. 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.

i. Economic conflict: This involves competing motives to attain scarce resources. Each party
wants to get the most that it can, and the behavior and emotions of each party 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”.

ii. Value conflict: This involves incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies – the preferences,
principles and practices that people believe in. International conflict (e.g., the Cold War between
USA and Russia in the 80’s and 90’s; stand-off between USA and North Korea) often has a
strong value component, wherein each side asserts the rightness and superiority of its way of
life and its political-economic system.

iii. Power conflict: This 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”

4
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. As a former ruling party that has been in power for about 16 years, the People’s
Democratic Party (PDP) is caught in a serious power conflict between the two splinter groups of
Ali Modu Sheriff and Ahmad Makarfi.

It must be noted that most conflicts are not of a pure type, but involve a mixture of sources. For
example, 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. But it is
important to note that 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 skills in communicating what we really
mean in a clear and respectful fashion often result 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.

6. 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 of
organizations or nations.

i. Interpersonal conflict: This 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
such difficulties. At the same time, very real differences occur between people that cannot be
resolved by any amount of improved communication. “Personality conflict” refers to very strong
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 struggle
ensues. Common tactics used in interpersonal power struggles include the exaggerated use of
rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional blackmail, and sweet
talk or ingratiation. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the point of
relationship breakdown and termination.

ii. 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

5
the conflict. This type of conflict is very common in organizations among employees or agencies
that have similar roles.

iii. Intergroup conflict: This 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 have developed 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 (Fisher, 1990). 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.

iv. Multi-Party Conflict: This 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 (Cormick
et al, 1996; Gray, 1989).

v. International conflict: This 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 counter-threat, 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.

7. Orientations to Conflict: Constructive or Destructive

For many decades, conflict has been viewed only as a negative force. Nowadays, two different
orientations to conflict have evolved: functional and dysfunctional conflict. Functional form of
conflict, or constructive conflict, supports the goals of the organization and improves its
performance. Functional conflict may actually encourage greater work effort and help task
performance One of the main benefits of constructive conflict it is that it gives its members a
chance to identify the problems and see the opportunities. Also it can inspire to new ideas,
learning, and growth among individuals. When individuals engage in constructive conflict, they
can learn more about themselves and others. In addition, it can help to improve relationships
among members, because when two sides work on resolving a disagreement together, they feel
that they have mutually accomplished something.

Therefore, the functional outcome can be in the form of: stimulating innovation, creativity, and
growth; organizational decision making may be improved; alternative solutions to a problem
may be found; conflict may lead to synergistic solutions to common problems; individual and
group performance may be enhanced; individuals and groups may be forced to search for new
approaches; individuals and groups may be required to articulate and clarify their positions.

On the other hand, dysfunctional conflict is believed to be destructive. Such form of conflict
usually hinders organizational performance and leads to decreased productivity. This conflict
orientation is characterized by competing individual interests overriding the business’s overall
interests. Managers withhold information from one another. Employees sabotage others’ work,

6
either intentionally or through subtle, conflict-motivated disinterest in teamwork (Kinicki &
Kreitner, 2008).

The dysfunctional outcomes of the conflict may be in the form of: job stress, burnout, and
dissatisfaction; communication between individuals and groups may be reduced or completely
avoided; a climate of distrust and suspicion can be developed; relationship may be damaged;
job or organizational performance may be reduced; resistance to change can increase; and
organizational commitment and loyalty may be affected.

The differences between these two types of conflict are not in their sources but in the manner in
which each of them is expressed. In constructive conflict, each party resists attacking the other.
Instead, both sides take part in thoughtful discussion. They listen to each other’s point of view,
and try to find mutually beneficial solutions. By contrast, in dysfunctional conflict both parties are
involved in confrontation which does not lead to any beneficial solution (Whetten & Cameron,
2012).

8. Conflict Management Techniques

Conflict management is the ability to recognize conflict (intra, inter, and organizational) and to
respond in ways that alleviate emotional tensions and enhance relationships, such that
opportunities for growth, creativity, and productivity are enhanced, and disputes
prevented. It also includes the resolution of any disputes that do arise, and the containment of
power struggles, through appropriate interventions. In other words, conflict management
involves acquiring skills related to conflict resolution, self-awareness about conflict modes,
conflict communication skills, and establishing a structure for management of conflict in
your environment.

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 (Deutsch & Coleman, 2000). Conflict has the potential for either a great deal of
destruction or much creativity and positive social change (Kriesberg, 1998). Therefore, it is
essential to understand the basic processes of conflict so that we can work to maximize
productive outcomes and minimize destructive ones. Fear of conflict can turn leaders, managers
and employees into ‘psychological hostages’ who are paralyzed and unable to challenge others.

The truth is that we can use well- managed conflict to bring enormous benefits to people and
companies. In fact, conflict management is often one of the biggest drivers of change. Properly
handled, it can help people to be more innovative and can create stronger bonds, build effective
teams and improve performance. The key is to openly face an issue and negotiate a win-win
outcome. Kohrieser (2007) noted that typically, managers spend at least 24% of their time
managing conflict, according to a survey by the American Management Association. Does that
sound like a shocking waste? In fact, it is an opportunity – if conflict is dealt with constructively.

Conflicts are the lifeblood of high- performing organizations. Disputes, disagreements and
diverse points of view about strategy and implementation create energy, bring about change,
stimulate creativity and help form strongly bonded teams in full alignment. Organizations that
encourage people to raise difficult issues find that doing so leads to innovation, new goals and
the changes needed to achieve them. This approach has been adopted by many of the world’s

7
largest multinationals, as well as law enforcement agencies, humanitarian agencies and
governments. Confronting conflict does have risks, however. If not properly managed, and if the
result is win-lose, the process can undermine teams and can damage mutual respect,
alignment, engagement and trust. However, there is every reason to believe that all conflicts
can result in win-win outcomes and hence the need to properly manage conflict. There are
many approaches to conflict management, depending on the nature of the conflict, and the
people involved in the conflict.

i. Good Governance
Although a controversial term, it is indeed a conflict prevention technique as well as an effective
resolution technique as the case may be. Good governance may be defined as the running of
the affairs of government in positive and progressive manner beneficial to the governed and
which delivers the public goods. It is a relative term to which there is consensus, but most will
agree that it is characterized by democratization, maintenance of law and order, accountability
and transparency, responsiveness on the part of the government, due process, rule of few,
competence, separation and devolution of powers, virile civil society, competition for power and
existence of a credible opposition, the respect for minority rights among other human rights
concerns, etc (Best, 2005).

Good governance helps to diffuse tension and remove problems as they evolve. Decision
makers take the right decisions as and when due. In so doing, the rulers gain the support of the
citizenry. In many African countries, conflicts are state or government generated, as a result of
the insensitivity and incompetence of the regimes on the continent. One of the consequences
of such public actions is that they easily lead to the escalation of major crises because the
wrong decisions were taken, or no decision was taken at all. Democracy as opposed to
dictatorship is an ideal setting for the practice of good governance. Unfortunately, in many
African countries, democracy is taken for elective governments, multi-party politics and longevity
of regimes. There are many dictatorial democracies in Africa; such regimes do not promote and
practice good governance; in fact they assist greatly in generating conflict in their countries and
some times in the continent at large.

ii. Effective Communication

This is the process of sharing and exchanging information between individuals, groups and
potential parties in a conflict situation. It is also the process of interacting and relating with
others; meaning that parties to a conflict situation still talk (Best, 2005). The exchange and
sharing of information can help remove doubt, suspicion and contribute to the process of
confidence building. These are essential ingredients of peace building. Communication relates
to the presence and sharing of accurate information about a conflict situation, being able to talk
about feelings and concerns of parties, speaking about what parties would like to change, and
discussing the name and type of the conflict touching on the positions, interests, needs and
fears of the parties. Poor communication or the absence of communication about these and
other subjects, or a misinterpretation of the needs and feelings of one another by conflict parties
can easily lead to escalation of conflict.

Communication has come to represent a key strategy of conflict management. Most of the non-
violent methods of conflict management such as collaboration, negotiation and dialogue as well
as the third party interventions like mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication are
largely dependent on effective communication. What third party interveners do is to bring about
an enhanced process of controlled communication between parties in any given conflict (Burton,
1965). This keeps the parties seeing each other, interacting with each other and talking to each
other about their problem with a view to generating some workable solutions to the issues in the
conflict. Communication is a non-adversarial, cheap method of preventing and resolving conflict

8
situations. Once communication is lost, distorted or poorly and carelessly done, then the
conflicting parties risk getting into deeper crisis that cannot be easily resolved. Thus,
communication is invaluable for conflict prevention in the first place, and then for conflict
resolution.

iii. Collaboration
Known as Problem Solving, collaboration is a style of resolving conflict where the parties
objectively work with each other to find a solution that is satisfactory to both of them. It is about
dialogue in which the parties listen actively and gain understanding of each other’s point of view.
That understanding enables them to develop a solution that satisfies the concerns of both
parties. It is a situation where both parties win. This approach is more socially acceptable
because parties in the conflict are fully involved in the conflict resolution process from the
beginning to the end. It is a situation where the parties jointly find out the root causes of the
conflict; jointly decide on alternative courses of actions as well as jointly appraising and
selecting the workable course of action to resolve the conflict. In the words of Ojiji (2005)
collaboration as conflict resolution technique makes sure that parties exercise control over the
process as well as the outcome. This control is vital in ensuring compliance with the outcome of
the procedure. It is the compliance that offers guarantee of lasting resolution of the conflict. As
long as none of the parties is left with a grudge over the outcome of a given process, there will
be a tendency for the resolution to lead to lasting peace.

Collaboration is characterised by open and honest dialogue that is positive and constructive;
willingness to listen to another view; emotions are dealt with properly; enables seeking input
from other party; there is willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions; it enables giving
ground without “giving in”. Collaboration as a strategy of managing conflict can be employed
when: the relationship is important; a mutually satisfying outcome is sought; both views/sides
are too important to compromise; underlying issues need to be addressed; one wants to avoid
destructive means of handling conflict and new and creative solutions are desired. However,
collaboration takes more time and energy; it requires both parties to be committed to the
process; it makes a party appear unreasonable if he/she later decides against collaboration; and
also, a collaborative party may appear weak to an aggressive party.

iv. Compromise
Compromise involves finding an expedient mutually acceptable solution, which partly satisfies
both parties. A compromising style of resolving conflict results in each conflict participant
sharing in some degree of winning and losing. In this situation, each party is partially assertive
and partially cooperative. In this case, each party gives and takes to find a ‘middle ground’.
Compromise becomes necessary in situations where the positions of the parties are so
incompatible that the two cannot be reconciled without one of them losing something in the
process. This is different from collaboration where the parties can be reconciled without any of
them making losses. This is win some, lose situation. Compromise always succeeds in reducing
the intensity of the conflict but not in totally resolving it. It can serve as a way of buying time
necessary to work out a more acceptable solution to the conflict. It is, therefore, of benefit to the
parties especially in the short term. In other words, it offers a short-term resolution for a ‘peace-
keeping’ and appeals to fairness.

Compromise as a strategy of managing conflict is more appropriate when a temporary solution

is needed; parties are of equal power; parties wish to save time and energy; and when doing so
‘seems fair’ to all parties. However, there are many shortcomings that inherent in this strategy.
Thus, it always leave underlying issues unresolved; issue may become a recurring problem;

9
parties are required to give something up; one/both/all parties may not be completely satisfied;
becomes an easy way out of creative conflict resolution.

v. Avoidance
Avoidance strategy comes into effect when one party deliberately and consciously ignores the
conflicting issues or denies the significance of the issues in his/her life. Also, it can be through
evasion of the conflict or joking about the problem. It is a way of not addressing the conflict, or a
tactical way of postponing the conflict for a better time or give more time to parties in conflict to
‘cool down’ or when it is appropriate to let others resolve the conflict. In this situation, the person
is unassertive and uncooperative; there is no intention to pursue one’s own needs or those of
the other party.

As it is often the case, however, conflict is not resolved by having the issues ignored or not
getting attended to. In the long-run, if the issues in the conflict are not addressed there would
emerge a situation of worsening relationships between the conflicting parties. However, an
avoidance strategy can make sense when a conflict situation has relatively minor implications
for individual or group effectiveness, when there appears to be little chance for a person to win
the conflict, and when the potential benefits of confronting conflict situation are overshadowed
by the potential damage of confrontation. Additionally, avoidance is appropriate in order to
reduce tension, to regain perspective, and to gather additional information. However, avoidance
is seen as a decision made by default without any input; there will be loss of influence in a
situation or relationship; leads to self-doubt and loss of self-esteem; one may be unable to deal
with conflicts in the future; and it may demonstrate lack of caring.

vi. Accommodation

This technique of dealing with conflict comes from a cooperative disposition. Thus, the party
while using this style is not assertive and is not involved in competition with the other party.
Rather, in accommodation there is a conscious attempt to neglect one’s needs and focus on
satisfying the needs of the other party. The underlying value here is that of self-sacrifice which
may be a manifestation of self-esteem (Ojiji, 2005). In such a situation the person is meek so
that he/she gives in to the demands of other people. In other situations, it may be a reflection of
the desire to ensure personal and social harmony, and preserve relationship at one’s cost. Like
the case of avoidance, accommodation has a short- term benefit in the form of social stability. In
the long run, the other party that won may assume greater power that can be detrimental to the
other party that yielded in. Another problem with this is that by yielding in to the other party, the
wrong impression that it can be the same with every situation, may have been formed. When
his/her expectation is not met, the person becomes aggressive and frustrated. Secondly, if a
conflict is not constructively handled, parties may not reap from the opportunity that conflict
resolution presents to individuals and society to improve relationships and situations.

vii. Domination/Competition
This is the technique of resolving conflict called competition and it is derived from the disposition
of people to assert themselves in situations. Here, there is little or no interest in the well-being or
interest of the other party; it is all about the person and the person alone (Ojiji, .2005).
Domination, in a way, is an attempt to deny the rights of the other party; the primary motive is
the desire for one party to win and thereby making the other party a loser. Thus, the - stronger
(assertive) party behaves in a manner to suppress the views of the other party by using strong
arguments or emphasizing his/her rank or economic status. This approach to resolving conflict
can hardly lead to a lasting resolution of the conflict. Even if the stronger party wins, there is the
tendency that the other party would still be having some grudges against the other party;
additionally, whenever, the opportunity arises, the aggrieved party would express discontent,

10
which could open up the problem again. The strategy consists of hostile remarks or jokes;
threats and/or coercion; denial of own responsibility; verbal arguments; physical altercations;
covert actions. This strategy is best employed when immediate and decisive action is
necessary; the style will be rewarded; there is no relationship of value; the issue is more
important than the relationship; when a party needs to prove commitment/strength; total victory
is desired; or when competing can bring parties together/make both better.

This approach is power oriented and approaches conflict in terms of win or lose affair. It is an
approach of resolving conflict that is rooted in power relationship where one party perceives
more power over the conflict issue than the other. Dominance is deliberately selected either as
an attitude, or because in the opinion of the domineering party, the other party lacks capacity to
respond adequately to the power being used by the dominant party. The use of this approach
may prevent the real causes of a conflict from coming out into the open. It also creates forces
which aggravate the struggle and does little to discover innovative and constructive solutions
acceptable to all.

viii. Confrontation/Fighting
Confrontation occurs when the parties in a conflict physica1or verbal attack each other. The
parties could engage in confrontation through the use of threats or insults or through outright
violence. There seems to be a considerable lack of understanding and mistrust between the
parties as each tries to hold to his/her own views and therefore disagrees with the other
person’s view point. Expectedly, this style of conflict resolution is characterized by violence and
creates a lose/lose outcome; that is, a situation where both parties eventually lose. It is only in
rare circumstances that confrontation leads to win/lose situation, where the stronger party wins.
Political analysts and conflict resolution strategists have already seen doom for Nigeria’s Ex-
President, Obasanjo, and his Vice, Atiku, who had finally resorted to the use of confrontation as
a strategy for resolving their political conflict in early 2007. The President made the conflict open
by accusing and taking the Vice President to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) and the two Houses of Assembly for trial and eventual impeachment. On the other
hand, the Vice President released some vital documents to serve as evidence of the
involvement of the President in some high level official corruption and fraudulent activities in the
management of the nation’s resources; all this is in addition to granting information to the media
aimed at further discrediting the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed
Forces.

ix. Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Conciliation is a third party activity, which, covers intermediary efforts aimed at persuading the
parties to a conflict to work toward a peaceful solution and it involves facilitation. Miller,
(2003:67) provides an elaborate definition of conciliation as “the voluntary referral of a conflict to
a neutral external party (in the form of an unofficial commission) which either suggests a
nonbinding settlement or conducts explorations to facilitate more structures or techniques of
conflict resolution. The latter can include confidential discussions with the disputants or
assistance during a pre-negotiation phase. The conciliator communicates separately with
parties and provides the assistance needed from a neutral party. A key aim of conciliation is to
reduce tensions between parties and in a conflict situation. Conciliation provides the vital
background through several complex activities, which in turn support higher profile events like
mediation.

A growing number of schools today are training students in the skill of mediation. Mediation is a
process for resolving conflicts that involves a neutral third party. As is true for all people involved
in a conflict, mediators need to think about their own safety first. Mediators should never get

11
involved in heated conflicts that have the potential for turning violent at any moment. Mediation,
therefore, is assistance by a third party where the parties to a conflict admit that they have a
problem which they are both committed to solving, but in which the mediator manages a
negotiation process, but does not impose a solution on the parties. It is also a common skill that
many people have, but which some hardly realize they do. For example, when two friends have
a disagreement and the line of communication abruptly is broken, a common friend could be a
mediator in the relationship. The same thing moves up to higher levels of relationship at the
group, community, society and international levels. The objective of mediation is to help parties
to a conflict, within an environment of controlled communication, to reach solutions to their
problem. The role of the mediator is to create the enabling environment for the parties to carry
out dialogue sessions leading to the resolution of a pending conflict. The involvement of
ECOWAS in Gambia impasse between Yahaya Jammeh and Adama Barrow is a clear example
of using mediation to resolve conflict.

Arbitration is another type of third party intervention that is a step higher than mediation in the
conflict management spectrum. Arbitration is the use and assistance of a neutral third party in
conflict, who hears the evidence from both parties, and thereafter renders a decision, usually
called an award, which is expected to be binding on the parties.

x. Adjudication

Adjudication is another non-violent method of conflict management. This involves the use of the
courts and litigation process. Parties to a dispute choose not to use any of the methods we have
discussed. They may choose instead to take their case to a court of law, before a judge of
competent jurisdiction where legal counsels may represent them. At the end of the process, the
court gives a judgment, and is legally binding on both parties. The judgment will be further
enforced, where necessary, by the law enforcement agencies of the state. Like arbitration,
adjudication is least expected to be a peaceful means of resolving conflict and disputes. This is
because litigation tends to destroy trust, love, respect and other forms of confidence between
parties. It also increases suspicion, and the bitterness of litigation lingers on for a long time after
the judgment must have been given. Litigation ends with win/lose outcomes, where the winner
appears to take all, and the loser ends up with nothing, that way, the bitterness stays. In
addition, litigations take quite a long time to dispose off, and they are expensive. Most
unfortunate, in Nigeria, economic or political status of one of the parties can and do influence
the litigation’s final outcome. For example, the memory of Buhari Vs Obasanjo; Yar’Adua;
Jonathan over the 2003; 2007; 2011 presidential electoral malpractices respectively is fresh in
the memory of most Nigerians. Immediately after 2003 General Elections that were
characterized by massive rigging and unprecedented malpractices, the ANPP candidate,
Muhammad Buhari, chose to go to court of law to seek redress. Although, most of the electoral
malpractices and wrong-doings perpetrated by the Obasanjo-led PDP government were
witnessed and attested by many international observers including the Commonwealth and other
reputable international media organizations, after three years of proceedings, the High Court of
Justice as well as the Supreme Court ruled that the election was free and fair and therefore
devoid of any problem that may call its cancellation.

It is important to note that in the environment where there is clear evidence of lawlessness and
high level of corruption, the choice of adjudication as a means of addressing conflicts,
sometimes only leads to frustration and further escalation of the conflict, because the expected
outcome in terms of justice and fair play cannot be realized.

12
9. Treating Escalation Problems (Crisis Management)

A crisis is an extreme situation of conflict, which has reached a turning point, where critical
decisions have to be made or else the conflict escalates to a point of extreme violence.
Sometimes a crisis is a degenerated state of conflict, where threats to human security, intense
violence characterized by fighting, death, injury, large-scale displacement of population, etc. If
conflict has degenerated in to ‘crisis’, there are better ways it could be treated. The Niger-Delta
and Boko Haram crises in Nigeria, the Darfur crisis in Sudan, and other socio-political crises in
Sierra Leone, Congo, Uganda, Somalia, Chad, Central African Republic and Niger etc; could be
managed more effectively through the following strategies for reducing the intensity of a crisis
situation.

a. Escalation Training

Parties often do not understand the threats posed by escalation, so they fail to take simple steps
which can significantly reduce this threat. They also escalate conflicts intentionally, without
recognizing the problems this can cause. By simply understanding the costs - as well as the
benefits - of escalation, disputants can make better decisions about when and how to escalate a
conflict, and when de-escalation is a better approach.

b. Cooling-Off Periods

In crisis situations angry people are often under great pressure to make instantaneous decisions
of great importance. Under such circumstances, people commonly act in overly confrontational
ways which they later regret. One strategy for limiting this problem is for the parties to agree to a
‘cooling-off’ period, during which everyone can re-evaluate the situation and make more
carefully reasoned decisions. A related strategy involves the restructuring of forces (usually
military) in ways which make instantaneous responses impossible.

c. De-escalatory Language

It is helpful to be careful about the way one speaks to opponents and to the public-at-large in a
conflict situation. Care should be taken to use conciliatory and calming language, because
conflicts can be de-escalated more successfully this way than they can be when inflammatory
language is used.

d. Dealing with Destructive and Hateful Speech

Although democracies usually support the concept of freedom of speech, an argument can be
made that hate speech should be censored to prevent conflict escalation and limit
dehumanization. An alternative to censorship is to respond to hate speech with ‘good speech’
that takes the moral ‘high ground’ and tries to defuse the situation.

e. Media Management

As pointed out, media often escalate a conflict by emphasizing the extreme view point and
events. By educating the media about more responsible and constructive ways of reporting
about a conflict and particular events within that conflict, government can make the media play a
much more constructive role in constructive confrontation.

13
f. Step-by-Step De-escalation (GRIT)

De-escalation is much more difficult to implement than escalation. One strategy for starting a
de-escalation spiral is what Charles Osgood called GRIT--Graduated Reciprocal Reductions in
Tension. This involves one side making a small conciliatory gesture, which they hope is
matched by a conciliatory response from the other side. If it is not, a second or third small
gesture can be made to indicate one’s interest and willingness to de-escalate the conflict. Once
the opponent reciprocates, another slightly more important conciliatory step can be taken, and if
that is matched, the pattern can be continued, resulting in a cycle of conciliation in place of the
former cycle of escalation.

g. Controlled Confrontation

Conflict groups can develop ways of doing conflict that permit escalation while controlling
runaway processes. This is very common in a war scenario where a safe passage is created for
civilians to be evacuated and provision of humanitarian aids is made possible.

h. Dealing with Extremists

An interest group can often limit the distorting effects of extremists by publicly and forcefully
condemning their actions. In extreme cases involving criminal behavior, this may even require
the parties to cooperate with law enforcement officers. Excluding extremists from meetings and
negotiations can also be helpful at times, although it can cause problems later if the extremists
try to block an agreement because they were not involved and/or it does not protect their
interests.

i. Changing Leaders

The personalization of a conflict can often lead to the group leaders to view the conflict as a
personal issue, rather than an effort to advance the group’s interests. In this situation they are
likely to let their personal feelings interfere with their ability to pursue the group’s goals. More
progress toward group goals can often be made by appointing new leaders who are willing to
take a fresh look at the situation.

j. Ground Rules

The constructiveness of interactions between conflicting parties can often be increased if the
parties can identify and agree to comply with a series of ground rules governing their
relationship. These rules limit escalation pressures by emphasizing respectful discussion of the
core issues.

k. Managing Strong Emotions

Interactions involving parties who are extremely angry with each other often degenerate into
emotional confrontations which increase, rather than decrease, hostilities. Effective anger
management strategies are needed to help people deal with their anger without further
escalating the conflict. Other strong emotions such as distrust, fear, and suspicion must be dealt
with as well if escalation is to be avoided or diminished.

l. Peacekeeping

In situations involving the risk of direct physical confrontation, it can be very useful to place
peacekeepers between the parties so that violent confrontations are impossible without placing

14
the peacekeepers at risk. To be effective, peacekeepers need to represent groups which neither
side is willing to endanger. Since peacekeepers are usually unarmed or only lightly armed, they
are only effective when the disputants support their presence and want to stop fighting.

m. Observers

In hostile confrontations, disputants are often tempted to do things to harm or terrorize an

opponent that would be widely condemned by the larger society or the world as a whole. In
these situations, violence can often be limited when observers, who are trusted by the larger
community, constantly accompany vulnerable individuals. The purpose of such ‘protective
accompaniment’ is to report aggressive behavior and human rights violations to the larger
community and the world as a whole, where condemnation would be assured.

n. Future Focus

Escalation can be limited by helping the parties to focus on the future relationship that they
would like to build between each other, and not the assignment of blame and punishment for
past misdeeds.

o. Develop Personal Relationships

A key to blocking the de-humanization effect are programmes which systematically establish
positive personal relationships between contending parties.

10. Important Hints for Effective conflict Resolution

This consists of ways or strategies for determining who is involved in the conflict, what they
think, and the context or the environment of the conflict. Taking these into consideration would
enormously help the parties towards effective resolution of the problem.

a. Conflict Mapping

Conflict mapping is a technique which helps parties to systematically determine the scope of a
conflict. It identifies parties, issues, and the larger context of a dispute. It also identifies conflict
processes and options for conflict management or resolution. Overall, conflict mapping provides
basic information which is essential to planning a constructive response to a conflict.

b. Strategic Option Identification and Costing

Part of conflict mapping is the identification of options for confronting and/or settling the conflict
and assessing the costs and benefits of each.

c. Analysis of Similar Conflicts

Often a great deal can be learned about an ongoing dispute by analyzing the history of similar
disputes. This can yield ideas about problems that are likely to develop as well as possible
approaches for conflict management or resolution.

d. Identifying and Involving All Potential Disputants

A careful effort to identify all current and potential parties is necessary for effective conflict
resolution. While some parties to a conflict are obvious, others remain hidden. Efforts should be
made to figure out who might be affected by the outcome to a particular conflict, as well as who
is currently concerned about the situation but has not yet become active in his/her concern.

15
e. Understanding Historical Context

Disputes are often part of a long-running conflict. In order to handle a dispute effectively, it is
important to recognize the history of the underlying conflict. This often explains why people feel
the way they do, and can give hints about possible effective remedies for the current situation.

f. Recognizing Related Disputes

Disputes also get linked to other disputes that are going on at the same time. In order to be able
to effectively deal with one dispute, it is important to recognize other disputes that are linked to it
and that may affect the outcome of the initial dispute.

g. Assisted Scoping

Just as it is sometimes useful to have an outside party work with the disputant(s) to help frame
the conflict more objectively, the same is true to help them understand the scope of the conflict.
This can be done by one side seeking an outside consultant to help them analyze the conflict; it
can also be done with the other parties present in the context of mediation or consensus
building.

h. Opening Lines of Communication

Successful communication requires that the parties have a way of contacting one another in
ways which they feel comfortable using. This means that they should know what to do if they
want to pass a message to other parties and that the other parties will carefully attend to the
messages that they receive.

11. Conclusion

The chapter explores various techniques or approaches to the understanding and resolution of
conflict. For better understanding of the subject of conflict and conflict management, the chapter
addresses some analysis of the nature of conflict generally, and the root causes of conflicts. It
recognizes that many a times effective solution to a problem is half solved when its cause is
already known. Therefore, the chapter provides an in-depth analysis of conflict management
techniques and has given some tips for dealing with a crisis situation that grows out of conflict. It
is worthy to note that not all forms of conflicts among individuals, groups, organizations, and
societies should call for immediate resolution. Some conflicts are usually mild and manageable
and they further pave way for better communication and understanding. Conflicts that lead to
better ideas and innovation lead to improved performance and productivity. These are positive
conflicts and therefore should be maintained and encouraged. Whereas, conflicts that exist in
the contrary frameworks are negative conflicts, and therefore, in whatever dimension they exist,
the management, the constituted authorities or the stakeholders should immediately move in to
resolve them. However, the choice and effectiveness of any conflict resolution strategy depend
on the circumstances or the exigencies of the environment prevailing at a particular time. That is
to say, there is no one best method of resolving conflict for all conflict situations.

References
Baron, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing
the human side of work (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Best, S.G. (2005). The Methods of Conflict Resolution and Transformation. in Shedrack Gaya-
Best (ed.), Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa: A Reader, Ibadan:
Spectrum Books Limited

16
Bisno, H. (1988). Managing conflict. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Boulding, K. E. (1968). Preface to a special issue. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12,
409–411.
Cormick, G., Dale, N., Emond, P., Sigurdson, S.G. & Stuart, B.D. (1996). Building consensus for
a sustainable future: Putting principles into practice. Ottawa: National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy, 1996.
Coser, L. A. (1968). Conflict: III. Social aspects. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia
of the social sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 232–236). New York: Crowell Collier
& Macmillan.
Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P. (eds.). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Fink, C. F. (1968). Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 12, 412–460.
Fisher, R.J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Diego: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, D. (1965). Nationalism and strategies of international conflict resolution. In H.C. Kelman
(ed.), International behavior: A social psychological analysis. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, pp. 356-390.
Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2008). Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills & Best
Practices. New York: The McGraw - Hill Companies.
Kohrieser, G. (2007). Six Essential Skills for Managing Conflicts. Perspectives for Managers,
(149).
Kriesberg, L. Constructive conflict: From escalation to resolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1998.
Mack, R. W., & Snyder, R. C. (1957). Analysis of social conflict: Toward an overview
and synthesis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 212–248.
Miller, C. A. (2003). A Glossary of Terms and Concepts in Peace and Conflict Studies. Geneva
University for Peace
Ojiji, O. (2005). Conflict Handling Styles. in Shedrack GayaBest (ed.), Introduction to Peace and
Conflict Studies, in West Africa: A Reader, Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
Rahim, M. A. (2005). Managing Conflict In Organizations. Construction Conflict Management
and Resolution (First Edit.)., (2005), 370. http://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.48-4579
Robbins, S. P & Coulter, M. (2000): Management, 5th edition, New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India
Private Limited.
Robbins, S. P. (1978). Conflict management and Conflict Resolution are not synonymous
terms. California Management Review, 21 (2), 67–75.
Schmidt, S. M. & Kochan T. A. (1972). Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity. Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17.
Thompson, L. (1998). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Wall, J. A., Jr., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management,
21, 515–558.
Whetten, David A., & Cameron, Kim S. (2012). Managing Power and Conflict in the Workplace.
Introduction to International Organizational Behavior. Retrieved 25 February, 2012, from
http://www.introtoob.com/textbook/introtoob/chapter7/

17