KEY ELEMENTS OF CONFLICT

Conflict is more than an argument, a fistfight, or a mild disagreement. In the 1950's, conflict became a focus of study. The study of conflict from the perspective of modern, process-oriented communication theory began to accelerate in the 1970's.

To discover how conflict differs from others types of communication, learn the key elements in a definition of interpersonal conflict: 

1)Conflict and interdependence

Early social science definitions of conflict. All interpersonal conflicts, whether they occur between family members, students and teachers, employees and supervisors, or groups, have certain elements in common. One of the popular definitions of conflict, offered by Coser (1967, 8), asserts that conflict is "a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power, and resources, in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure, or eliminate the rivals." Notice that this definition grew out of the cold war, when conflict between the United States and the former U.S.S.R. dominated Western approaches to conflict. Conflict was definitely viewed as a win-lose situation. In 1973, Deutsch maintained that "conflict exists whenever incompatible activities occur . . . an action which prevents, obstructs, interferes with, injures, or in some way makes it less likely or less effective" (156). Mack and Snyder (1973) suggested that two parties must be present, along with "position scarcity" or "resource scarcity," in addition to behaviors that "destroy, injure, thwart, or otherwise control another party or parties, . . . one in which the parties can gain (relatively) only at each other's expense" (36). All of these early social science definitions help us distinguish conflict from simple "strain," "disagreement" or "controversy" (Simons 1972; Schmidt and Kochan 1972).

Contemporary social science definitions of conflict. Contemporary definitions of conflict focus largely on interdependence, instead of unalterable opposition. Donohue and Kolt (1992, 3) define conflict as "a situation in which interdependent people express (manifest or latent) differences in satisfying their individual needs and interests, and they experience interference from each other in accomplishing these goals." Jordan (1990, 4) writes that "conflict arises when a difference between two (or more) people necessitates change in at least one person in order for their engagement to continue and develop. The differences cannot coexist without some adjustment." Parties are presented as inherently interdependent. Additionally, at least one person may need to change his or her perception of the situation. Conflict is sometimes, but not always, accompanied by anger or strong emotion.

Conflict is also characterized as varying in intensity and range. At least two continua have been advanced to describe the intensity of conflict. In one, it may be seen as a (1) mild difference, (2) disagreement, (3) dispute, (4) campaign, (5) litigation, or (6) fight or war (Keltner 1987). Another continuum (Moore 1996) shows conflict ranging from avoidance [through informal discussion and problem solving to negotiation to mediation to Administrative decision to arbitration to Judicial Decision to Legislative decision to Nonviolent direct action to violence] […] Our conflict management choices range from low coercion to increased coercion of the other party; they also reflect who is making the decisions:  the parties themselves or an external authority.

Conflict and communication. An interpersonal approach to conflict management focuses on the communicative exchanges that make up the conflict episode. Intrapersonal conflict – internal strain that creates a state of ambivalence, conflicting internal dialogue or lack of resolution in one's thinking and feeling – accompanies interpersonal conflict. One may endure intrapersonal conflict for a while before such a struggle is expressed. If you are upset with your father yet do not write him, or phone him less often, and avoid expressing your concern, do you have a conflict?

People involved in conflict have perceptions about their own thoughts and feelings, and they have perceptions about the other's thoughts and feelings. Conflict is present when there are joint communicative representations of it. The verbal or nonverbal communication may be subtle--a slight shift in body placement by Jill and a hurried greeting by Susan--but it must be present for the activity to be considered interpersonal conflict. Therefore, although other conditions must also exist before an interaction is labeled "conflict," Jandt (1973, 2) asserts, "Conflict exists when the parties involved agree in some way that the behaviors associated with their relationship are labeled as 'conflict' behavior." Often, the communicative behavior is easily identified with conflict, such as when one party openly disagrees with the other. Other times, however, an interpersonal conflict may be operating at a more tacit level. Two friends, for instance, may be consciously avoiding each other because both think, "I don't want to see him for a few days because of what he did." The interpersonal struggle is expressed by the avoidance. Intrapersonal perceptions are the bedrock upon which conflict is built, but only when there are communicative manifestations of these perceptions will an "interpersonal conflict" emerge.

Most expressed struggles become activated by a triggering event.  A staff member of a counseling agency is fired, setting off a series of meetings culminating in the staff's demand to the board that the director be fired. Or, in a roommate situation, Carl comes home one night and the locks are changed on the door. The triggering event brings the conflict to everyone's attention – it is the lightning rod of recognition.

Communication is the central element in interpersonal conflict.  Communication and conflict are related in the following ways:

• Communication creates conflict.
• Communication reflects conflict.
• Communication is the vehicle for the destructive or productive management of conflict.

Thus, communication and conflict are inextricably tied. For example, the most distinguishing characteristic of happily married couples is their ability to reach consensus on conflictual issues (Mettetal and Gottman 1980). How one communicates in a conflictual situation has profound implications for the residual impact of that conflict. If two work associates are vying for the same position, they can handle the competition in a variety of ways. They may engage in repetitive, damaging rounds with one another, or they may successfully manage the conflict. Communication can be used to exacerbate the conflict or lead to its productive management.

Cooperation and competition. Conflict parties engage in an expressed struggle and interfere with one another because they are interdependent. "A person who is not dependent upon another – that is, who has no special interest in what the other does – has no conflict with that other person" (Braiker and Kelley 1979, 137). Each person's choices affect the other because conflict is a mutual activity. People are seldom totally opposed to each other. Even two people who are having an "intellectual conflict" over whether a community should limit its growth are to some extent cooperating with each other. They have, in effect, said, "Look, we are going to have this verbal argument, and we aren't going to hit each other, and both of us will get certain rewards for participating in this flexing of our intellectual muscles. We'll play by the rules, which we both understand." Schelling (1960) calls strategic conflict (conflict in which parties have choices as opposed to conflict in which the power is so disparate that there are virtually no choices) a "theory of precarious partnership" or "incomplete antagonism." In other words, even these informal debaters concerned with a city's growth cannot formulate their verbal tactics until they know the "moves" made by the other party.

Parties in strategic conflict, therefore, are never totally antagonistic and must have mutual interests, even if the interest is only in keeping the conflict going. Without openly saying so, they often are thinking, "How can we have this conflict in a way that increases the benefit to me?" These decisions are complex, with parties reacting not in a linear, cause-effect manner but with a series of interdependent decisions. Bateson (1972) presents an "ecological" view of patterns in relationships. As in the natural environment, in which a decision to eliminate coyotes because they are a menace to sheep affects the overall balance of animals and plants, no one party in a conflict can make a decision that is totally separate – each decision affects the other conflict participants. In all conflicts, therefore, interdependence carries elements of cooperation and elements of competition.

Mutual influence. A basic question in any conflict is, "How much are we willing to allow each other to influence our choices?"  Persons who understand themselves as interdependent must determine who they are as a unit after they decide individually how much influence they want the other person to have over them. (Sometimes, these choices are not available.) They must decide, tacitly or overtly, which rules bind them, how they will communicate, where "beltlines" are (Bach and Wyden 1968), and dozens of other relationship issues that define them as a conflict unit proceeding toward mutual and individual goals. People who see themselves as relatively independent are primarily concerned with acting issues – where will I go, what will I get, or how can I win? But those who view themselves as highly interdependent must, in addition, decide being issues – who are we, and how will this relationship be defined? For instance, two persons in competition for a job are more interested in maximizing their own gains than the gains of the ephemeral relationship. One year later, after both individuals have been hired by the company, they perceive themselves as highly interdependent when asked to work together. While still in competition with each other for promotions, they must also define for themselves a workable relationship that enhances desired goals for them both.

Negotiating interdependence. Even though conflict parties are always interdependent to some extent, how they perceive their mutuality affects their later choices. Parties may choose interdependence – “we are in this together," – or independence, believing that "just doing my own thing" is possible and desirable.

A couple had been divorced for three years and came to a mediator to decide what to do about changing visitation agreements as their three children grew older. In the first session, the former husband wanted a higher degree of interdependence than did the former wife. He wanted to communicate frequently by phone, adopting flexible arrangements based on the children's wishes and his travel schedule. She wanted a monthly schedule set up in advance, communicated in writing. After talking through their common interest in their children; their own complicated personal, work, and travel lives; and the children's school and sports commitments, they worked out a solution that suited them all. Realizing that they were unavoidably interdependent, they agreed to lessen their verbal and in-person communication while agreeing to maintain written communication. They worked out an acceptable level of interdependence.

Balancing interdependence and independence. Sometimes parties are locked into a position of mutual interdependence whether they want to be or not.  Not all interdependent units choose to be interdependent but are so for other compelling reasons.  Most relationships move back and forth between degrees of independence and interdependence. At times there will be an emphasis on "me"--what I want--and on separateness, whereas at other times "we"--our nature as a unit--becomes the focus. These are natural rhythmic swings in relationships (Frentz and Rushing 1980; Galvin and Brommel 1982; Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell 1979; Baxter 1982; Bochner 1982; Stewart 1978). Just as we all need both stability and change, conflict parties have to balance their independence and dependence needs.

The previous discussion suggests, for clarity's sake, that relationships and interdependence issues precede other issues in the conflict. Actually, these negotiations over interdependence permeate most conflicts throughout the course of the relationship, never becoming completely settled. A helpful practice is to address the interdependence issue openly in ongoing, highly important relationships. In more transient and less salient relationships, the interdependence may be primarily tacit or understood

2) Perceived Incompatible Goods

What do people fight about? (We use the word fight to mean verbal conflict, not physical violence.) People usually engage in conflict over goals they deny are important to them. One company had an extreme morale problem. The head cashier said, "All our problems would be solved if we could just get some carpet, since everyone's feet get tired; but management won't spend a penny for us." Her statement of incompatible goals was clear – carpet versus no carpet. But as the interviews progressed, another need emerged. She began to talk about how no one noticed when her staff had done good work and how the "higher-ups" only noticed when lines were long and mistakes were made.  Her stated needs then changed to include not only carpet, but self-esteem and increased attention from management.  The needs for carpets and self-esteem were both real, but the first may have been incompatible with management's desires, whereas the second might not; the need for recognition may have been important to both the cashiers and management.

Forms of incompatibility. Perceived goal incompatibility appears in a couple of forms. First, the conflict parties may want the same thing – for example, the promotion in the company, the only A in the class, or the attention of the parents. They struggle and jockey for position in order to attain the desired goal. They perceive the situation as one in which there "isn't enough to go around." Thus, they see their goal as "incompatible" with the other person's because they both want the same thing. Second, sometimes the goals are different. Mark and Tom, for example, decide to eat out. Mark wants to go to Bananas and Tom wants to go to Pearl's. They struggle over the incompatible choices. Similarly, in an organization, one person may want to see seniority rewarded, whereas another may want to see work production rewarded. They struggle over which goal should be rewarded. Of course, many times the content goals seem to be different (like which restaurant to go to); but beneath them is a relational struggle over who gets to decide. Regardless of whether the participants see the goals as similar or different, perceived incompatible goals are central to all conflict struggles.

Reframing goals to resolve incompatibility. We do not support the overly simple notion that if people just worked together, they would see that their goals are the same.  Opposing goals are a fact of life. Many times, however, people are absolutely convinced they have opposing goals and cannot agree on anything to pursue together. However, if goals are reframed or put in a different context, the parties can agree. Recently, a student teacher's supervisor outlined her goals for the student. Included in the list was the demand that the student turn in a list of the three most and least positive experiences in the classroom each week. The student asked to be transferred to another supervisor, saying, "I can't be open about my failures with someone who's going to give me my ending evaluation, which will go in my permanent files." In a joint discussion with the teacher and the student, the dean found that both were able to affirm that they valued feedback about positive and negative experiences. Their goals were more similar than they thought; the means for achieving them were different. The teacher agreed to use the list as a starting point for discussion but not to keep copies; the student agreed to list experiences so the teacher would not feel that the student was hiding her negative experiences. Trust was built through a discussion of goals. Perceptions of the incompatibility of the goals changed through clear communication.

3) Perceived Scarce Resources

The nature of resources. A resource can be defined as "any positively perceived physical, economic or social consequence" (Miller and Steinberg 1975, 65). The resources may be objectively real or perceived as real by the person. Likewise, the perception of scarcity or limitation may be apparent or actual. For example, close friends often think that if their best friend likes someone else, too, then the supply of affection available to the original friend will diminish. This may or may not be so, but a perception that affection is scarce may well create genuine conflict between the friends. Sometimes, then, the most appropriate behavior is attempting to change the other person's perception of the resource instead of trying to reallocate the resource. Ultimately, one person can never force another to change his or her valuing of a resource or perception of how much of the resource is available, but persuasion coupled with supportive responses for the person fearful of losing the reward can help.

Money, natural resources such as oil or land, and jobs may indeed be scarce or limited resources.  But intangible commodities such as love, esteem, attention, respect, and caring may also be perceived as scarce.  A poignant example concerns dropouts in the school system. By watching videotapes of classroom interactions, researchers could predict by the fourth grade, which students would later drop out of school.  The future dropouts were those students who received, either by their own doing or the teacher's, very limited eye contact from the teacher. They became, nonverbally, nonpersons.  The glances, looks, smiles, and eye contact with the important person in the room became a scarce resource upon which the students were highly dependent.  Often, children fight with one another over teacher attention – a perceived scarcity.  Or, they fight with the teacher, resulting in a gain of that resource.  A child would rather get negative attention than none. When rewards are perceived as scarce, an expressed struggle may be initiated.

Key resources in interpersonal conflict. In interpersonal struggles, two resources often perceived as scarce are power and self-esteem. Whether the parties are in conflict over a desired romantic partner or a coveted raise, perceived scarcities of power and self-esteem are involved. People engaged in conflict often say things that may be easily interpreted as power and self-esteem struggles, such as in the following scenarios:

"She always gets her own way." (She has more power than I do, and I feel at a constant disadvantage. I'm always one down.)

"He is so sarcastic! Who does he think he is? I don't have to put up with his mouth!" (I don't have ways to protect myself from biting sarcasm. It feels like an attack. I feel humiliated. The only power I have is to leave.)

"I refuse to pay one more penny in child support." (I feel unimportant. I don't get to see the children very often. I've lost my involvement with them. Money is the only way I have to let that be known.  I don't want to feel like a loser and a fool.) 

"I won't cover for her if she asks me again. She can find someone else to work the night shift when her kids get sick."  (I feel taken advantage of. She only pays attention to me when she needs a favor.)

Regardless of the particular content issues involved, people in conflict usually perceive that they have too little power and self-esteem and that the other party has too much. Of course, with each person thinking and feeling this way, something needs to be adjusted. Often, giving the other person some respect, courtesy, and ways to save face balances each person’s perception of resources and decreases the likelihood of conflict.

4) Interference

People who are interdependent, have incompatible goals, and want the same scarce resource still may not meet the conditions for conflict. Interference, or the perception of interference, is necessary to complete the conditions for conflict. If the presence of another person interferes with desired actions, conflict intensifies. Conflict is associated with blocking (Peterson 1983), and the person doing the blocking is perceived as the problem. 

For instance, a college sophomore worked in a sandwich shop the summer before her junior year abroad. She worked two jobs, scarcely having time to eat and sleep. She was invited to a party at a cabin in the wilderness, and she really wanted to go. She worked overtime on one day then asked for a day off from the sandwich shop, but the employer was reluctant to say yes, since the student was the only one the employer trusted to open the shop and keep the till. For an angry moment, the employer – who was interfering with what the student wanted to do – and the student each seemed to the other like the source of the problem. Goals appeared incompatible, no one else was available to open (scarce resource), and the two parties were interdependent because the student needed the job and the owner needed her shop opened and the cash monitored. She was about to say, "No. I'm sorry, but I can't cover you." The student volunteered to train someone else, on her own time, to cover for her. The problem was solved, at least for this round, and the conflict was avoided. But if the student had quit in disgust or the employer had said no, both would have sacrificed important goals.

The student’s and the employer’s willingness to look beyond the immediate obstacle to how they could get around it enabled them to resolve the immediate conflict. Management of future conflict, however, involves developing long-range goals and a process for achieving them.