Everybody knows situations, where conflicts arise. Conflicts mights arise at work, at home or event with random strangers on the street.

At work such situations include team members not wanting to take over responsibilities of other colleagues and arguying about who’s turn it is. Often in meetings people start arguying with each other, because their own solution scenarios contradict the goals of other team members.

At home conflicts arise, when decisions are being made about furnitures, about sunday afternoons, about a family weekends, about future plans etc.

On the streets, people get into conflicts, e.g. when speaking to loud via mobile phones, making other people feel uncomfortable.

Cooperation or negatotiation sometimes seem to be out of reach.

Let’s take a more abstract view at what conflicts mean?

What do those examplary scenarios have in common? It appears, that people, who are convinced, that their pursued goal will stay unachieved due to the actions of other people, get into conflicts.

Why are situations escalting:

* Differing perception of facts by involved parties:

* Strong emotionial states

* Pursue of self-defense

* Basic error of attribution

* Conflict personality types

* Communication barriers

* Limiting ressources

What are the different types of conflicts?

* Zero-sum conlficts: The positive outcome of the winning side is equal to the negative outcome of the losing side.

* Mixed-motive conflics: both parties can benefit from co-acting, but one party can get more if it gets into competition.

The important question is not, what kind of definition should be used in order to describe conflicts. The more important question focuses on how to achieve satisfying results, while already being in conflicting situations. Of course, one approach might be conflict avoidance, but in my estimation, this is not an overall benefitting approach to life in general in the long-run. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes, in certain circumstances, conflict avoidance might be a good strategy. But in general, group and individual outcomes should increase based on effective conflict management aimed at cooperation.

What are our general directions of action in conflict situation?

* Competition: We seek competeting, when we have a high own interest and a low concern for the partner’s interest

* Cooperation: We seek support (cooperation), when we have a high own interest and a high concern for the partner’s interest

* Adaptation: We seek adaptation, when we have a low own interest and a high concern for the partner’s interest

* Avoidance: We seek avoidance, when we have a low own interest and a low concern for the partner’s interest.

* Compromise: We seek compromises, when both, own interest and cocern for others is on an average level.

In the following, several general tactics on how to react in conflict situations are described.

3.1.1. When to start negotiations?

Negotiation is the mechanism to use, when involved parties want to conclude an agreement. Involved parties do recognize the conflict and the potential agreement. All parties have the necessary decision making competencies and have prepared for conducting the negotiations.

3.1.2. What styles to use in negotiations?

* Cooperation: parties act like friends. The major goal is a settlement, while treating each other gently and trusting each other. Parties can easily change their views. The end-solution is approved by the other side.

* Rivarly (hard): participants of the negotiation are opponents. The major goal is victory. Participants are hard against the other side and do not trust each others. They use threats and hide bottom boundaries, in order to achieve a good solution for themselves.

* Materialism: participants solve the problems together, pursuing reasonable results. People seperate themselves from the problem and are independent from trusting each other. They try to focus solely on the task, avoiding unnecessary conflicts.

3.1.3. Cooperation – the robbers cave experiment

The robbers cave experiment has shown two very simple tactics in order to achieve cooperation. Within the experiment, 2 initially well intentioned groups, where then developed into rival groups and incited against each other. Afterwards both groups were given the same goal to approach. It was important to have a common goal. The other crucial aspect were shared ressources. In order to solve the common issue or achieve the common goal, both parties had to cooperate, because they shared mandatory and unique ressources. The formerly rival groups started cooperating after a certain amount of time, because goal achievement was only possible together.

The robbers cave experiment puts emphasis on two aspects:

* Common goal: Formulate or create a common goal

* Shared ressources: Focus on common and shared ressources

3.1.4. Cooperation – Improve communication skills

Some communication skills might help in being less aggressive and in developing more understanding for the other party:

* Asking open questions: Open questions are questions, which allow the other party to evaluate in whatever direction he or she thinks is right. Closed questions in general generate defensive answers and Yes/No answers.

* Paraphrasing: Is rephrasing, what the opponent has said in own words. Often it is used to shorten long claims and provide a feeling of understanding.

* Clarifying: Clarification is used in order to confirm rightful understanding

* Summarizing: Summarizing is used in order to get acceptance after one topic is discussed and cooperation is reached, in order to proceed with the next topic.

* Mirroring of emotionality and affectivity: Mirroring is used to build trust and rapport. It means re-act the body and facial gestures and expressions of the other party.

* Emphasizing on opinions not judgements: Emphasizing on the fact, that ones evaluation is not a given fact, but an opinion

* Inform all parties about assumptions and goals upfront: Sometimes not showing all cards is less valuable. Within a cooperation scenario showing his cards might help in achieving the common goal, as it will avoid conflicts due to misunderstandings.

* Understand underlying assumptions: This point is very important in negotiations, private and professional. It means, that one should not argue the facts on the table, but the underlying assumptions. Sometimes understanding the underlying assumptions, makes the facts understandable.

* Understand triggering situations: Different people have different learned triggers, which make them become emotional and aggressive. It is good to find out the moments, which trigger the opposite site in order to avoid unnecessary problems

* Less defending oneself: This is a point i like very much. When defending yourself, it means that one is in defense position, accepting short term superiority of the opposite site or the argument of the opposite site.

* Understand your own goals upfront: When understanding own goals upfront, it will lead to clearer communication towards to opposite site, which will increase understandning

* Find a better way or place for cooperatoin: Sometimes places trigger people. Sometime a new place or the use of other words lead to better results, true to the motto: “Don’t expect other results, if you don’t change your behavior”

3.1.4. Cooperation – Social cooperative solutions

Within cooperation, there are some tactics, which are more socially driven. Some of them are listed below:

* Exchanges of concessions on matters, to which the other party is concerned: Would be the most difficult task, as the important concerns are in general shared by all conflicting parties

* Finding bridging options: finding a bridging option, means that there might be solutions, which were not considered before. but might increase the cooperation level, while not giving up major goals.

* Non-specific compensation: e.g. rewarding the other site with a concession from outside the conlfict area

* Expanding the pool of ressources: by expanding the pool of ressources, the initial ressources from within the conflict area might seem less important than before.

Is a process, which is structured under guidance of a neutral party. The neutral party supports in solution finding within the conflict situation. The neutral party is educated in professional conflict solving, by using communication and negotiation techniques.

Arbitration means, that there is a binding verdict by a party outside of court. The neutral party is trying to settle all the involved conflicting parties needs. Often there is a unsalaried person.

Is similar to the process of arbitration. There is a neutral person, who talks to the conflicting parties seperately and then together. The goal of this different communication strategies is to lower the conflict potentials and improve interpersonal communication.

There are many tactics in order to foster cooperation. One can improve communication skills or generate a setup, which consists of a common goal and shared ressources. Another possibility is to make concessions in areas, which are not conflict specific or to involve more ressources, which can be used in conflict solving. When a point of no return is reached, then there are possibilities to include third party negotiators, who might take part as neutral kind of referrees.

4.2.1. From a psychological standpoint

* Do not create stresful situations, by acting stresful: Be calm, listen and react. Don’t overreact, don’t create to much buzz around the problem.

* Do not communicate via personal attacks: don’t judge the person, don’t judge the person’s attributes, judge the argument

* Do not use of threats: don’t use threats in order to achieve your own goals

4.2.2. From a negotiation standpoint

* Do not neglect the negotiation upfront: do not get into a discussion, neglecting the potential cooperation. At least try to be as open as possible

* Do not polarize opinions: this means, that you should not drift into extremes, escalating opinions. Stay within a rational and moderate frame.