Supersaturated water vapor as Pluto’s mysterious atmospheric coolant
Fig 1 Pluto’s actual temperature profile (solid black) compared with its pre-
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 2.0 Objectives 3.0 Main Content3.1 What is Communication?
3.2 Communication and Problem solving 3.3 Cooperative Communication
4.0 Conclusion 5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment 7.0 References/Further Readings
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This unit introduces communication as a critical factor in conflict outbreak and management.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of the unit, you should be able to
1. Explain the meaning of communication and its centrality to conflict management.
2. Highlight the importance of cooperative communication as it relates to various ways and stages of conflict management.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Communication?
Communication is very important to conflict management. According to Wilmot and Hocker (1998) conflict management ‘starts from clarification of communication and checking of perception’ which involves the following:
i) speaking out what is on one’s mind;
ii) listening carefully;
iii) expressing strong feelings appropriately;
iv) asking questions;
v) remaining rational;
vi) maintaining a spirit of give and take;
vii) avoiding harmful or inflammatory statements;
viii) asking directly what is going on;
ix) telling others one’s opinion;
x) looking for flexible ‘shades of grey solutions’;
xi) recognising the power of initiating a cooperative move;
xii) identifying conflict patterns; and lastly,
xiii) Engaging in negotiations of agreements and settlements.
The point being made is that conflict management requires a high level of communication skills especially when such managements involve cross-cultural settings.
3.2 Communication and Problem Solving
When problem solving, parties seek a mutually acceptable solution to their conflict. "The parties or their representatives talk freely to one another. They exchange information about their interests and priorities, work together to identify the true issues dividing them, brainstorm in search of alternatives that bridge their opposing interests, and collectively evaluate these alternatives from the viewpoint of their mutual welfare." Parties may either compromise; agree on a procedure to determine who should win, or develop an integrative solution.
Integrative solutions are the most desirable, because they maximize both parties gain, and because they can diminish the parties perception of conflicting interests.
Pruitt and Rubin suggest five techniques for creating integrative options.
Parties may "expand the pie" by increasing the available resources. "In non-specific compensation, One Party gets what he or she wants, and the other is repaid in some unrelated coin." In logrolling, parties trade concessions on low priority issues. Cost cutting seeks ways to meet a party's goals with minimal or no cost to the other party. The parties may use bridging to invent new options that substantially satisfy both of their basic interests.
In order to bridge or cost-cut effectively, the parties must have some understanding of the interests that underlie their positions, and of the deeper interests that underlie those interests. Sometimes deeper interests can be reconciled even when superficial interests conflict. "When one seeks the interests underlying divergent positions, one often finds that the issue under consideration has a different meaning to each of the two parties." For instance, one party may be concerned with substance and the others with appearances, or one with the short term and the other with the long term.
The authors suggest a four step problem-solving process. First, parties must clarify and explain the situation, to determine whether there really is a conflict of interests present. Secondly, each party must thoroughly examine their own interests, and set reasonably high aspirations. Third, the parties should solve problems together, using the techniques above, trying to create an integrative solution that satisfies both parties interests. Finally, if no integrative solution can be found, one or both parties must lower their aspirations, and search again for an integrative solution.
Parties must be firm about their basic interests, flexible about how those interests may be satisfied, and remain responsive to the other party's interests. If there are many issues at stake, then the parties will need to develop an agenda. Usually it is best to put the easiest issues first on the agenda. Deciding that no agreement is final until all are allowed for logrolling on the later issues. When issues are very complex, parties may begin by first agreeing on an overarching formula for how talks will proceed. Often, a party's interests are psychologically (but not practically) linked together. Such psychological linkages must be broken down to increase the parties' flexibility and increase the potential for an integrative solution.
There are risks in shifting toward a problem solving strategy when the other side is contending strongly. The strategic shift may be seen as a sign of weakness, and so cause the contending party to intensify their efforts. Raising integrative options may be interpreted as backing off a position. Discussing one's interests may give an advantage to the other party. To minimize these risks, parties often use covert tactics to test the other's interest in shifting towards a joint problem-solving strategy. One such covert tactics is to have back-channel contacts, meeting in informal, private or even secret venues, to explore problem solving.
"Intermediaries provide greater protection against image loss and information loss than is found in back-channel meetings, because it is even less clear whether they represent the thinking of the people who sent them." Parties may also use conciliatory signals to invite problem solving. Such signals must be both noticeable, so the other side gets the message, and undeniably, so the first party can save face.
A party may also try overt persuasive tactics to draw the other side into problem solving. The key to effective recruitment is to convey a firm but conciliatory stance toward the others. Parties signal firmness by making a vigorous statement of their interests and having constituents make strong statements, by being unwilling to make unilateral concessions, and by developing a modest amount of threat capability.
Careful use of contentious tactics can also signal firmness without triggering escalation. Parties can signal their conciliatory intent by
expressing their willingness to adopt integrative solutions, by expressing concern for the other party, by keeping the lines of communication open, and by rewarding the other's cooperative gestures. Parties may also make unilateral trust-building initiatives, for instance, by using the Gradual Reduction in Tensions (GRIT) strategy.
3.3 Cooperative Communication
Some ways of communicating, increase friction and anger. Other ways of communication tend to cause people to work WITH us, and not against us. While it is clear that blatant accusations, name-calling and personal attacks are confrontational (the opposite of cooperative), there are many more subtle ways to ruin a communication. To illustrate some of the techniques of cooperative communication, let's take a look at the following sentences:
"You never finish the work on time."
"It seems like you are having some difficulty with the timelines. What can I do to help?"
Which of these phrases do you think is more likely to elicit a productive dialogue? Clearly the first at least "sounds" antagonistic", while the second doesn't. Another example: "If you had bothered to read the report, you would know...."
It might be that the report wasn't clear on those points. Would you like me to explain?
What are the cooperative rules here? In our first set of examples, the initial statement uses an absolute word "never", and as a result tends to cause the other person to argue. In addition the phrase sounds blaming.
The replacement phrase lacks those confrontational characteristics, uses a qualifier "seems", and offers to work together. In the second phrase set, the key word is "bothered", which suggests that the person is lazy, or uncaring, and that is what will be heard. It also is a blaming statement. In the replacement phrase, we introduce another qualifier
"might", followed by an offer to solve the problem.
In both phrase sets, the first phrases are likely to create argument and personalized conflict while the replacement phrases are more likely to result in real problem solving.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Conflict management requires a high level of communication skills especially when such managements involve cross-cultural settings.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we defined the concepts, communication, communication and problem solving, and cooperative communication. We also stressed the impacts of these concepts on conflict management processes.
6.0 TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENTS (TMAS)
i) What is communication?ii) Most conflicts are the result of poor communication. Discuss.
iii) How important is the manner of communication to conflict resolution?
iv) What is cooperative communication?
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READINGS
Pruitt, Dean G. and Jeffrey Z. Rubin. (1986). Social Conflict:
Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement New York: Random House.
Ross, M.H. (1993).The Management of Conflict: Interpretations and Interests in Comparative Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press,