Conflict Competence

© L. Deborah Sword

Conflict is often defined as disagreements over goals, or opposing interests among people, or struggles over resources. However, conflict can arise even when people have the same goals, have similar interests, and have access to equal resources.

This is a true story of four groups of people working on a conflict-laden problem in their community. It was a matter of record that all of the groups wished to accomplish the same goals, yet they were unable to work together. They had an honest disagreement over the solutions to their shared problems. 

They believed the conflict statement was: which of the proposed solutions is the right solution. In other words, they agreed on the narrow issue, they agreed on the need for community wide solutions, they agreed on the desired outcome, and they adamantly disagreed over what solutions would get them from the current problems to the wished for end state.

Depending on the perceptions of the root cause, different solutions presented. One group argued that the problem was caused by structural inequities (government), while another blamed individual behavior (people), a third pointed to discrimination (class/race/poverty), and the fourth held social isolation (place) responsible. Many experts offered contradictory evidence with no way to decide among it. The four solutions were philosophically inconsistent with each other. The choice was framed as irreconcilable - either ‘their way’ or ‘our way’. All four groups believed that the others’ wrong solution was a waste of resources that would perpetuate the problem, and that the preferred solution (i.e. theirs) was correct and more compassionate.

All the solutions required large resource investments, without the chance to return to the original state if the chosen solution later turned out to be the wrong choice. There was little communication or interaction among the groups while they worked hard at cross-purposes. No time or resources were spent reconciling the rifts.

All the groups perceived a need for cooperation, however, they believed that cooperation would happen only when those who disagreed with them changed. None of them considered the possibility of themselves changing to see things the way of another.

What they had in common outweighed their differences, and still they had entrenched conflict. All of the groups were missing the opportunity for inclusive, public conflict processes. They used competitive discourses to oppose each other and vie for influence, believing there was one solution to one problem. We shifted the problem statement from ‘which of the proposed solutions is the right solution’ to ask instead how to ‘inspire and engage the community, invigorate local governance, and enhance problem-solving capacity’, which changed the discourse from competition to collaboration. From there, they worked to nurture the attributes of community builders, and found affiliation through community life that each group was seeking.