|
|
Challenge 5
Wherever possible, we need to
MOVE BEYOND WIN-LOSE PSYCHOLOGY
|
While win-win solutions are not always possible, there are far too many cases in which we fail to pursue opportunities for advancing everyone's interests by working together. This need to move beyond win-lose psychology isn't a surprise to people in the conflict resolution field, but the challenge is to convince other people that this is the case, especially people who have been locked in a destructive conflict for a long time. Although simple interest-based negotiation is not adequate to deal with complex identity and security conflicts, it is still possible to find win-win solutions in such needs-based conflicts, because needs can be mutually supporting. Take the need for security as an example. When one party feels its security is threatened, it is likely to lash out, threatening the security of the other side. This often results in a threatening response — which increases the insecurity of both sides and further drives the escalation spiral. On the other hand, if one side makes a gesture to enhance the sense of security of the other side, the likelihood of a threatening response is diminished. With luck, this can start a de-escalation spiral, as each side diminishes the threats it makes towards the other, as it feels less threatened. So security has a large win-win potential.
So does identity, if disputing parties can learn to tolerate (or better yet, appreciate) difference. The more hostile and discriminatory a dominant group is to a subordinate group, the more the subordinate group is likely to reject the identity of the dominant group. The more accepting and inclusive the dominant group is, the more the subordinate group is likely to be willing to work within "the system" to improve their status, rather than working outside the system to overthrow it. So identity, too, has a potential win-win character. The challenge, however, is how to get people to realize this potential, and act accordingly.
|
Meeting the Challenge: What We Now Know
|
The conflict resolution field knows a great deal about ways to get people to reframe interest-based conflicts from competitive, win-lose frames to cooperative (or integrative) win-win frames, especially in small-scale conflicts that can be negotiated around a table. We also have some well-established processes for dealing with needs-based conflicts (such as dialogue and problem-solving workshops). The remaining challenge is how to get these processes more widely implemented, and how to "scale them up" so that their impact goes beyond the few people who have the opportunity to participate in these table-oriented processes. The following articles describe these approaches:
First, some articles on different ways of framing conflicts:
Knowledge |
Availability |
|
|
Utilization |
|
- Competitive and Cooperative Approaches to Conflict This set of materials explores these two different approaches to conflict and the results of pursuing one or the other.
- Frames, Framing, and Reframing Frames are the way we see things and define what we see. Similar to the way a new frame can entirely change the way we view a photograph, reframing can change the way disputing parties understand and pursue their conflict.
- Interests, Rights, Power and Needs Frames The way parties view or "frame" their own interests, needs, rights and power can determine whether a conflict becomes intractable or not.
- Identity Frames Identity frames include ideas about who one is, what characteristics they share with their group(s) and how they do and should related to others. These frames are frequently sources of conflict.
- Reframing Bernard Mayer wrote, "The art of reframing is to maintain the conflict in all its richness but to help people look at it in a more open-minded and hopeful way."
And some articles on negotiation strategies (competitive vs. cooperative).
- Negotiation Strategies Most literature on negotiation focuses on two strategies, cooperative bargaining versus competitive bargaining. This essay defines and compares these two bargaining styles.
- Integrative or Interest-Based Bargaining In integrative bargaining, the parties attempt to "enlarge the pie" or allocate resources in a way that everyone gets what they want.
- Distributive Bargaining In distributive bargaining the parties assume that there is not enough to go around. Thus, the more one side gets, the less the other side gets.
- Positional Bargaining This type of bargaining negotiates from positions, rather than interests. It is more typical in situations where there is a "fixed pie" to be divided up, or where both sides cannot possibly win, hence an integrative approach is not possible.
- Creating and Claiming Value In any negotiation, the parties decide whether to be competitive or cooperative. However, some theorists argue that this is a false dichotomy — that all negotiations involve both.
And approaches to human needs conflicts that can't be addressed with interest-based bargaining alone:
- Dialogue In dialogue, the intention is not to advocate but to inquire; not to argue but to explore; not to convince but to discover. This essay introduces the concept of dialogue, discusses why it is needed, and suggests ways to do it effectively.
- Track II (Citizen) Diplomacy
Track II or citizen diplomacy are peacebuilding efforts undertaken by unofficial (usually non-govermental) people who try to build cross-group understanding and even develop ideas for conflict resolution that have not been broaded in official channels.
- Problem-Solving Workshops
In a problem solving workshop, carefully chosen representatives from all sides meet with a third party panel to analyze the conflict and develop possible solutions. The process usually focusses on human needs and is more analytical than other similar approaches.
Book Summaries
Other Resources of Interest:
|
