CRIM 6- DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CRISIS /INCIDENTS MANAGEMENT

Module 1- Concept of Conflict

CONFLICT

A conflict is an activity which takes place when conscious beings (individuals or groups) wish to
carry out mutually inconsistent acts concerning their wants, needs or obligations. (Nicholson,
M., 1992)
Conflict may also refer to a natural disagreement or struggle between people which may be
physical, or between conflicting ideas. It can either be within one person, or they can involve
several people or groups. It exists when they have incompatible goals and one or more believe
that the behavior of the other prevents them from their own goal achievement. The word
“Conflict” comes from the Latin word “conflingere” which means to come together for a battle.
Conflict Theories
Conflict theory states that tensions and
conflicts arise when resources, status, and
power are unevenly distributed between
groups in society and that these conflicts
become the engine for social change. In this
context, power can be understood as control
of material resources and accumulated wealth,
control of politics and the institutions that make
up society, and one's social status relative to
others (determined not just by class but by
race, gender, sexuality, culture, and religion,
among other things). (Crossman, 2019)

Conflict theory originated in the work of Karl

Marx, who focused on the causes and
consequences of class conflict between the
bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production
and the capitalists) and the proletariat (the working
class and the poor). Many social theorists have built
on Marx's conflict theory to bolster it, grow it, and
refine it over the years. Many others have drawn on
conflict theory to develop other types of theory
within the social sciences, including the following:

1. Feminist theory;
2. Critical race theory;
3. Postmodern theory and postcolonial theory;
4. Queer theory;

CBSUA-SIPOCOT BS CRIMINOLOGY
Page 1 of 3
 CRIM 6- DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CRISIS /INCIDENTS MANAGEMENT

5. Post-structural theory, and

6. Theories of globalization and world systems.
So, while initially conflict theory described class conflicts specifically, it has lent itself over the
years to studies of how other kinds of conflicts, like those premised on race, gender, sexuality,
religion, culture, and nationality, among others, are a part of contemporary social structures, and
how they affect our lives.
The following are the five (5) Conflict Resolution Strategies:
Conflict Resolution Strategy #1: Avoiding
This is unassertive and uncooperative. The person neither pursues his own concerns nor those
of the other individual. Thus, he does not deal with the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of
diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply
withdrawing from a threatening situation.
Avoiding is when people just ignore or withdraw from the conflict. They choose this method
when the discomfort of confrontation exceeds the potential reward of resolution of the conflict.
While this might seem easy to accommodate for the facilitator, people are not really contributing
anything of value to the conversation and may be withholding worthwhile ideas. When conflict is
avoided, nothing is resolved.
Conflict Resolution Strategy #2: Competing

This is assertive and uncooperative. An individual pursues his own concerns at the other
person’s expense. This is a power-oriented mode in which you use whatever power seems
appropriate to win your own position—your ability to argue, your rank, or economic sanctions.
Competing means “standing up for your rights,” defending a position which you believe is
correct, or simply trying to win. Competing is used by people who go into a conflict planning to
win. Competing might work in sports or war, but it’s rarely a good strategy for group problem
solving.
Conflict Resolution Strategy #3: Accommodating

This is unassertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of competing. When

accommodating, the individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other
person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of
selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not to, or
yielding to another’s point of view.
Also, accommodating is a strategy where one party gives in to the wishes or demands of
another. They are being cooperative but not assertive. This may appear to be a gracious way to
give in when one figures out s/he has been wrong about an argument. It is less helpful when
one party accommodates another merely to preserve harmony or to avoid disruption. Like
avoidance, it can result in unresolved issues. Too much accommodation can result in groups
where the most assertive parties commandeer the process and take control of most
conversations.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #4: Collaborating

CBSUA-SIPOCOT BS CRIMINOLOGY
Page 2 of 3
 CRIM 6- DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CRISIS /INCIDENTS MANAGEMENT

It is both assertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves

an attempt to work with others to find some solution that fully satisfies their concerns. It means
digging into an issue to pinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two individuals.
Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn
from each other’s insights or trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem.
A group may learn to allow each participant to contribute with the possibility of co-creating a
shared solution that everyone can support.
Conflict Resolution Strategy #5: Compromising
It is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some
expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. It falls intermediate
between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less
than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but does not
explore it in as much depth as collaborating. In some situations, compromising might mean
splitting the difference between the two positions, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick
middle- ground solution.
The concept of this is that everyone gives up a little bit of what they want, and no one gets
everything they want. The perception of the best outcome when working by compromise is that
which “splits the difference.” Compromise is perceived as being fair, even if no one is
particularly happy with the outcome.

CBSUA-SIPOCOT BS CRIMINOLOGY
Page 3 of 3