“An interest-based approach recognizes that using power within a relationship to force an agreement often results in decisions that are unwise, are of poor quality, or are not accepted or supported by those who will carry them out” (Polzin & DeLord, 2006, pg. 34). We simply can’t be bullies when it comes to using this method. Everyone has to be in agreement with what actions that will be used to carry out the problems. There are six steps when using the Interest-Based, Problem-Solving Method: (1) Select an issue or problem to address; clarify and build understanding about the issue, (2) Identify the stakeholders (who are affected) and their interest, needs or concerns about the issue, (3) Invent options that might address all or some of the interests, (4) Evaluate the options against the interest; identify overarching interests that is interests that are shared by all) that any solution should meet; discuss the
This tends to make people defensive, and they will either lash out, or withdraw and say nothing more. However, if they feel that their opponent is really attuned to their concerns and wants to listen, they are likely to explain in detail what they feel and why. If both parties to a conflict do this, the chances of being able to develop a solution to their mutual problem becomes much
The parties are both willing to use their power to deceive and take advantage to pursue their personal goals. One can justify the means of using power based negotiation if the results are positive. Professionals can use power based negotiations in a many different situations. Positional bargaining starts with a solution. Each party takes a stance on what they expect out of the negotiation.
The theory was expanded and modified by Leonard Berkowitz and others in 1962 as revealed by Nnamani (2015:4). The main claim of this theory is that as people with different beliefs, values and expectations live in different parts of the world and interact in the social system, hostility and frustration occurs. This theory believes that when individuals or groups are denied what they feel they desire legitimately, they feel disappointed which will lead to frustration and violent behaviour. The violent behaviour will be directed at those they perceive are responsible directly or indirectly for such denial. It is also upholds that where expectation does not meet attainment, people tend to confront those they feel are responsible for not attaining the expected issues or benefits.
“Before the truth can set you free you need to recognize which false belief is holding you hostage” -Anonymous Striving to achieve consonant cognitions or consistent behaviour always in our daily lives poses great difficulty as the media, our experiences and social interactions are constantly influencing our attitudes, behaviour, beliefs, knowledge and decisions made. Furthermore, through cultural diffusion such harmonious, internal consistencies are threatened, incongruence occurs and our perceptions of things change thus resulting in dissonance. According to Baron, R. A. et al (2008), cognitive dissonance—a consistency theory, is an internal state that results when individuals notice inconsistency between two or more attitudes; two or more
In Geographies of Exclusion, David Sibley talks about a liminal zone, spaces of ambiguity where the categories of inside/outside, public/private, or home/street become blurred or uncertain. Sibley asserts “for the individual or group socialized into believing that the separation of categories is necessary or desirable, the liminal zone is a source of anxiety”. Julia Kristeva’s set up his thesis about how otherness and social boundaries are constructed and maintained. Dangers to identity come from without: from disease, decay, infection. Kristeva insists, however, that the abject is always there, and that “this hovering presence of the abject” creates anxiety and drives humans to make separations between “us and them.
Communication is a critical foundation of every relationship; without it the relationship is deemed unsuccessful. Unsuccessful communication can result in constant tension, power inequalities and disagreements. Relational Dialectics is a communication theory, formed by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery, in which personal relationships are judged upon the management of tension produced by contradictory forces. (Thrift, 2017). Each of the contradictory forces contain two components, an internal source, between the individuals in the relationship and and external source, which is interference from the outside world.
As a compromiser myself, I can relate. However, even though compromising has cons associated with it, it can be influential about learning other styles. Ultimately, if compromisers analyze and seek to understand and improve their conflicts, they can learn different styles allowing them to adapt to differing conflicts in order to solve disputes
Moreover, having a mock conversation can help one identify particular facts objective statements that can positively influence how the other person will react during the actual conversation. Finally, one can ensure that he seeks the service of a mediator that has broad and desirable experience in handling individuals who are difficult to engage during conversations (Lewicki, Barry and Saunders, 61). Individuals who are experienced in handling difficult conversations can assist one to determine the right thing to
Management's behind the scenes approach, allowing it to “mushroom” created procedural conflict for Dr. Jones. His expression of surprise and anger when he realized how long this issue had been discussed in the background without his knowledge, or even a hint of a problem, suggests he felt the procedures followed to address the issue should have been different. A conflict can be composed of all or some of the four types: Goal, Cognitive, Affective and Procedural. Managing multiple types of conflict is sufficiently difficult but there is added complexity due to the need to assess the level of conflict. Dedicated attention to the complexity of conflict is necessary not only to avoid a dysfunctional dynamic but to also facilitate positive operational outcomes (Wombacher and Felfe,
Confrontation occurs when ill intent is present between two or more parties. This is followed by Truce, this is when each party is forced to interject a third-party to help resolve the confrontation. Collaboration is inclusive of the previous ill intent from the confrontation, however, but specific activities are accepted by both parties. Cooperation, the intent is neutral while activities are being planned and carried out. The process of interdependence involves both parties working actively towards the common goal of the conflict.