.png){kind=icon}
1. Wilmot and Hocker (2014) provide a definition of conflict that includes five parts. Must all five elements be present in order for conflict to exist? Why or why not?
Yes and no. Not all of the five elements need to be present in order for a conflict to exist. The first three must be present. First, a conflict cannot exist unless there is expressed struggle. That is, there must be some awareness of a disagreement. Second, the parties involved in a conflict must be somehow interdependent. If they weren’t, there wouldn’t be a conflict in the first place. Third, people in a conflict must at least perceive their respective goals to be incompatible. Again, if they did not hold that perception, there would be no conflict. Perceptions of scarce resources, however, may or may not be an issue underlying a disagreement, and therefore are not always a necessary condition. Finally, although not all conflicts are created equally, it is certainly true that conflicts are part of everyday life, and therefore inevitable.
3. Explain why collaboration is often more effective than the other four conflict styles described in this chapter.
When there’s a mutually high interest in the outcome of a conflict, as well as in maintaining a relationship, collaboration can be a positive approach to a resolution. It is similar to compromise, except that collaboration combines the ideas and input of everyone involved, and equally incorporates or distributes the ideas in developing a resolution that satisfies everyone. When collaboration is successful, everyone’s needs are met, whereas in the other four styles, at least one person has to give up at least some of what they want.
6. Contrast collaborative, win–win problem-solving with compromise. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Why is compromise celebrated in our culture and win–win problem-solving often ignored?
Win–win approaches to conflict differ from compromises in that they seek to meet the needs of everyone involved. Compromises may minimize one person’s goals for the sake of the other person or leave both parties less than fully satisfied. The advantages of win–win situations may include satisfaction for both parties, effective accomplishment of a task, and a positive feeling between the parties in problem-solving to meet mutual goals. One disadvantage of win–win approaches is that they are sometimes difficult and time-consuming to reach. Because individual conflict styles and other factors play a role in how we communicate, it is more common for incompatible goals and expressed struggles to be compromised rather than having complete win–win outcomes. Having said this, the advantages to compromise may include gaining a mutual understanding of each party’s needs and goals and agreeing to “trade-off” satisfaction in the future. These advantages can be helpful in future conflict with the other person. The disadvantages of compromise may include one-sided satisfaction or perceived satisfaction that is not genuine.