Animal nature
Resents higher ideals
Who is the victor?
Noah Body,
The lecture on conflict really spoke to me because it was a deep dive into an initiable part of life (and of course was the basis for the whole unit) presented in rich and systematic way. One of things I found most interesting was Henderson Power & Associates’ conflict resolution continuum. I had never thought conflict resolution in that way before. I started to think about some of the significant conflicts I have had and what sort of things I typically do in those situations. Often, I have been keen to avoid conflict or end up being the one whom compromises which often does not serve me.
Partly this comes out of my personality – when I did the Big 5 personality test (Poropat) I scored high on agreeableness so which often means I seek to be cooperative rather than get my way. So, I could see that I leant more to the passive end of the scale but as Gehani & Gehni (at 392) point out, Follet saw conflict as potentially a “legitimate and valuable expression of differences that can be made to work for the progress of the group”. This was another point that was new for me Also the point about how the likelihood of a lose/lose outcomes increased as the conflict resolution was one that struck home for me – ultimately those outcomes do not serve anyone. Interestingly Park & Antonioni found that personality and conflict behaviour can be separate and Schneewind & Gerhard found that conflict behaviour forms within the first year of a marriage, suggesting that behaviours can vary across relationships.
So my take-away from that reading and that part of the lecture is I do not have feel hamstrung by my personality and shifting to a more active form of resolution when conflicts arise – even though it puts me out of my comfort zone – increases the chances of a win-win outcome.
In a legal practice setting understanding the conflict resolution continuum and the management/resolution approach continuum in the introductory dispute resolution lecture mean that I would inform them of the likelihood of a better outcome coming from a more active approach. This is particularly if they to fully resolve not just issue/s at hand, but any deeper underlying conflicts coming from their interests. Of course, though, the choice of dispute resolution design will involve other factors such as whether there is an on-going relationship, or whether there are niche technical issues in dispute and so on.
Heejoon Park, David Antonioni, Personality, reciprocity, and strength of conflict resolution strategy, Journal of Research in Personality, vol 41(1) 2007, Pages 110-125,
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.
R. Ray Gehani & Rashmi Gehani (2007) Mary Parker Follett's Constructive Conflict: A “Psychological Foundation of Business Administration” for Innovative Global Enterprises, International Journal of Public Administration, 30:4, 387-404, DOI: 10.1080/01900690601153148.
Schneewind, K.A. and Gerhard, A.‐K. (2002), Relationship Personality, Conflict Resolution, and Marital Satisfaction in the First 5 Years of Marriage. Family Relations, 51: 63-71.
No comments:
Post a Comment