[中文]冲突解决对策及其可能结果
人们可以通过许多方法解决参战方之间的冲突。这些交战方可能只是两个人,也可能是类似国家的人类集体。可是,在任何一个特定的的情况下,难道解决冲突的方法都不管用吗?一个人或者人类集体都应该确定解决特定冲突的最佳方法是什么。如果一个人试图在其对自己和别人的关切之间保持平衡的话,双关注模式是适用的。一方面,那个人可以选择态度坚决,以自己的方式行事。另一方面,他也可以选择同情,按照别人感觉应该去做的方式完成工作。
当一些人们陷于冲突中时,他们有时隔岸观火,让矛盾自行化解。对于他们来说,这是最好的解决方法。这些人宁愿不主动参与处理问题。他们不关系别人在那种处境下的感受,甚至也不考虑自己的感觉。这种方式不适合解决高发的冲突,相反,它会使情况失去控制。
一种情况是一群员工发起罢工行动,而管理层呆在幕后观察会发生什么,不采取任何干预行动。罢工可能升级为更糟糕的情况,比如一些暴乱员工烧毁公司财产,甚至殴打雇主。如此下去情况会越变越糟,因为员工认为管理层反应冷淡,不解决他们关心的问题。相反,管理层认为员工的强硬态度需要压制。如果双方达成了共识,管理层就要主动着手处理员工的不满。从另一个角度讲,员工不需要受到同情,因为为其服务的管理层听到了他们的呼救。糟糕的是,许多坠入陷阱的员工是所谓忠诚的类型。按他们的话说,上天应该插手解决此事。不过事情不该这样处置,因为不是所有人有相同的信仰或宗教归宿。许多人信奉不同的神,一些人信的神要求信徒先自己处理困难,然后它再伸出援手。因此,这种信仰没有给予一些人片刻的休息,反而助长冲突的气焰。
解决冲突的另一个方法是采取妥协的态度。这种态度实际上对冲突双方是公平的。这样的人随时准备倾听双方的争议,从中讨价还价。它们也希望对方从妥协中获得一些利益,也就是公平。在上面的研究中,雇员希望满足要求,而管理层对他们的一些要求做出了让步。这不意味着双方的所有要求被满足,二是其中的某些主张需要实现。这就像员工劫持管理层,索要赎金一样。公平会阻止员工引发焚烧掠夺等暴力事件。公平暗示着管理层主动解决冲突,而不是坐在后面看着情况变得越来越糟糕。
冲突并非让人讨厌。在多个利益涉及两个及以上的人的地方,分歧不可避免。但是,分歧可能为人们互相更好理解甚至更强的凝聚力提供一种动力。在上面的工作场景中,雇员想让管理层知道即使自己没有受到监督,情况也像往常一样,可是冲突往往超出控制。利益冲突导致其他员工反对严格的监督。更糟糕的是,员工中的一个人可能让其他人在上级面前看起来更糟糕,以此表现自己很合格。
解决这样的冲突要求一个人既有坚强的态度和同情心。利用这些技巧,他可以轻松地与竞争者达成友好的解决方法。这种人不仅关心自己的利益,还关注他的竞争者的利益。他会和其他人合作找到双方都同意的方案。这个人可能以合作的的方式支持自己的员工伙伴,或者管理层。但是,处于竞争环境中的人该怎么办呢?与双方交谈后,人们逐渐明白了他们所持的观点。实际上,他们都没有破坏对方的目标。
任何解决冲突的努力都带来三种可能的结果。所有的结果取决于如何实施这些方法。首先,这个方案要对双方都有利。因为双方最终都获胜,这就叫做双赢局面。这篇文章中提到的第一种方法根本提不上双赢。双方有一方不能取胜。这是因为一方不关心解决方案的进展。
因为一方的立场摇摆不定,所以很难判断情况是否朝着有利于他们的方向发展。不管双方或输或赢,这群人不关心这个问题,他们只想最终获得安静。他们想要和平但是并不愿为此付出努力。因此,可以正确地认为当和平最终到来的时候,对于那些不坚持自己信仰的人来说,这就是胜利。可以认为这些人是懦夫,没有勇气去面对别人,即使他被别人责难。
一个双赢的冲突解决方法是一个人可以达到的最佳方案。他会给集体成员带来更大的凝聚力而且比之前冲突造成的隔阂更强。他们也更多了解到各自的思考方式以及使他们关系破裂的原因。将来他们不害怕冲突,但是仍努力避免分裂它们的情况;并营造局面,增进关系。
冲突解决的另一个结果是一方获胜另一方失败。在这种情况下,双方达成了一个无法运作的共识。冲突的一方太强势而另一方过于同情。强势者一定压制同情一方。所以,强者获得胜利,弱者失败。这种场景叫做输赢局面,因为一方输而一方赢。这就像雇员与雇主的对峙,雇员举行集会对抗雇主,要求自己的要求得到满足;而雇主的要求则没有人理睬。否则,雇主可能对员工过于残酷。此事发生之后,雇主以不服从命令为理由开除员工。
[/中文]
[外文]Resolving Conflicts and Possible Outcomes
[1] There are many ways through which people can resolve conflicts between warring factions. These warring factions can be as few as two individuals, or they might be large people groups like countries. However, the ways of resolving conflicts do not all work in any one given situation? A person or groups of people ought to decide upon which the best way of resolving a given conflict is. A model of dual concern might be assumed where an individual tries to strike a balance between the concern he has for other people and the concern he has for himself. On the one hand he may choose to be assertive and have things done his way. On the other hand, he may choose to be empathetic, and do things according to the way the other person feels things ought to be done.
[2] When engaged in a conflicting situation, some people might decide to resolve the conflict by staying aloof of the problem. To these people staying aloof is the best way of letting things get resolved. They prefer no active participation in seeing to it that the situation is resolved. They do not care much about what other people feel in the circumstances. They do not think much about their personal feelings either. High conflict situations are not best resolved with this kind of approach, however, because things can easily run out of control.
[3] An example of such a situation is when a group of employees go on strike and the management sits back to see what might happen, without taking any active role in what is going on. The strike might escalate into such bad situations as burning of company assets by the disgruntled employees or even roughing up of the employers. A bad situation grows worse in that case, because the employees feel that the aloofness of the management does not address their concerns. The management, however, feels that the assertiveness of the employees ought to have been toned down. If consensus could be reached between the two parties it would be at the point where the management has taken an active role in addressing the employees′ grievances. The employees, on the other hand, ought not to be greatly aggrieved, seeing that at least their cries are being heard by a management that cares for them. It is rather unfortunate that a number of people who fall into this trap are the so called faithful. They let things be, and say to themselves and to others that things shall be sorted out by divine intervention. However, things ought to be done differently, because not everyone has the same beliefs or religious leanings. Many people sere different deities and some believe in a deity that asks them to help themselves before deity comes to their aid. Therefore, instead of their faith being a source of respite, it fuels the flames of conflict for some people.
[4] Another way of resolving conflict is by adorning a compromising attitude. Such an attitude says to oneself and to others that it is good to be fair to both sides of the conflict. Such people are ready to listen to the arguments on both sides and to yield a bit to the demands of the other side. They also expect the other side of the conflict to yield to some of their demands, hence being fair. In the case study above, for example, the employees would be expected to yield to some of the demands of management while the management also gives in to some of the demands of its employees. Ideally, not all demands from each side shall be met, but a balance can be struck wherein some of the wants from each side shall be addressed. Like in the previous case, the more assertive of the two groups will be expected to yield a bit, by being conciliatory. This will be expected of the employees who hold the management in ransom by their actions. Being fair would not see the employees flare up into a fracas situation of burning and looting. Being fair would also see the management taking an active role in the resolution of the conflict rather than sitting back and watching as situation change from bad to worse.
[5] Conflict does not have to be a bad thing or a nasty experience. Where there are two or more people interacting with different interests at heart, disagreements are inevitable. However, such disagreements might be a source for better understanding of each other and even greater cohesion. In the workplace scenario above, conflict might have arisen out of one employee′s obsession with letting the management know about everything that goes on while they are not being watched. The conflict of interests comes in with the other employees being opposed to close supervision. It is further aggravated by the fact that one of their peers would like to make a good name for oneself by making the rest of them look bad in the presence of their superiors.
[6] Solving such a conflict might require one to have high levels of assertiveness as well as empathy. With these traits he can easily cooperate with his contenders to reach an amicable solution to their conflict. Such an individual is not only interested in his own welfare but has a heightened interest in the welfare of the people he contends with, as well. He shall cooperate with the other people to find a solution with which they shall all be agreeable. His cooperation might tend to favor the side of the fellow employees, or it might be in favor of the management. However, what would a person caught in the middle of such a conflict do? Through discussion with both parties, people get to be aware of the points of views that their contenders have. In effect, they do not undermine the goals of each other.
[7] There are three possible outcomes to any conflict resolution endeavor. Each of these outcomes depends on how the conflict resolution exercise is carried out. In the first place, a conflict resolution exercise might work in favor of both sides concerned. Since both parties win in the end, this is called a win-win situation. The first type of conflict resolution that was mentioned in this dialogue would never amount to a win-win situation. Not both parties win in the end. This is because one of the parties stays aloof from the goings on of the resolution process.
[8] Since its stand is neither here nor there, it becomes rather difficult to tell whether things are going the way they should for this group of people. Whether they win or lose is not the issue for this group, but rather, they only want tranquility in the end. They want peace but they are not ready to work or to fight for it. Maybe, therefore, one might be right in assuming that when peace prevails in the end, then that is a win situation for the people who do not want to stand up for what they believe in. It may be rightly opined that these people are cowards who do not have enough spine with which to face up to other people, even though they might be transgressed against.
[9] A win-win result of conflict resolution is the best result that one can achieve. It results in greater cohesion among group members than before the conflict caused a rift between them. They also get to learn more about each other′s way of thinking and what things can cause them to be drawn apart. In future, they will not fear conflicting situations, but they would rather strive to keep away from those things that divide them. They will strive for those things that cause them to be drawn closer together as a single unit.
[10] The other result of a conflict resolution is where one side wins and the other loses. In such a case, no workable consensus has been reached. One side of the conflict is way too aggressive while the other is too empathetic. The aggressive side is bound to have its way over the empathetic side. Thus, the aggressive side wins while the empathetic side loses. This example of a scenario is called a win-lose situation because one side wins while the other side loses. It would be likened to an employer-employee conflict situation in which the employee has a field day over the employer, with all the employee′s demands being met. The employer′s demands, on the other hand are not heeded to. Otherwise, the employer might be too high handed towards the employee. Following such a situation, the employer ends up sacking the employee for reasons such as insubordination.
[/外文]
|