CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

428 KOLB
typically, although not always, meant using different methods—surveys,
interviews, ethnographies, and case studies. It may be a challenge, one
fraught with conflict, to get scholars who work in one paradigm to agree on
how to study phenomenon from an integrated perspective. It may be that
integration will require more triangulation of methods. Ideology may also
be an issue. A focus on conflict management focuses on the interests of
leaders in the relatively smooth functioning of their organizations. We see
this normative value in many of the chapters, for example, what processes
lead to joint gain (chapters 3 and 4). Work on control and resistance takes
a more critical stance, focusing on conflict handling, rather than management
(chapter 2). These value positions may be more difficult to integrate.
the MeaninGs (anD shiftinG MeaninGs) of ConfliCt in orGanizations
With their now classic article on naming, blaming, and claiming, Felstiner,
Abel, and Sarat (1981) metaphorically and theoretically captured
the dynamic processes of meaning in conflict. There is nothing inherent
in the notion of a particular conflict. Conflicts are social events that are
embedded in the structure of social relationships and that are given shape
and definition as disputants take action. Depending on the audience and
the forum, the same conflict can be phrased in many different ways. To
use a popular example from the dispute resolution field, the same disagreement
can be defined in terms of rights that are violated, interests
to be worked out, or power to be exerted (Ury, Brett, & Goldberg, 1988).
This perspective, sometimes called a disputing perspective, would expand
not only our study of conflict processes, but also how we understand the
outcomes. Let me use some examples from the book.
The focus on microprocesses is a welcome addition to what has been
traditionally a black box between inputs and outcomes, especially in the
study of negotiation. However, with a few exceptions, the discussion of
process does not show how meanings might have changed. In chapter 3,
for example, although we learn about different sequences and the relation
to outcomes, how parties’ understand their issues and behaviors is
still a black box. Similarly, in chapter 5, we learned about how dissent
affects creativity and performance but not how the majority actually takes
in minority viewpoints. Putnam (2004) showed, for example, how shifts
in the levels of abstraction—from specific to general, from concrete to
abstract, from individual to system—change how parties understand their
issues. These new understandings can lead to a redefinition of the issues,
to different arguments, which in turn leaves space for different types of
outcomes (chapter 12). Indeed, were we to take seriously the notion that
disputes can be transformed, we might abandon our linear models in
favor of more interactive ones. Then we might notice that our conflicts
are rarely resolved, but are rephrased, redefined, and reprocessed, and so
continue to surface again in different forms.