25-08-2016, 04:07 PM
!overlay_problems.htm (Size: 36.24 KB / Downloads: 5)
Confusing Interests with Positions
Often parties are so committed to a single position (what they say they want), that they fail to consider why they are holding that position, and whether it really is likely to achieve their interests (what they really want). Framing conflicts in terms of positions often obscures win-win solutions that become apparent when the conflict is framed on the basis of interests.
Confusing Material Interests With Fundamental Human Needs
Many intractable conflicts involve the inability of one or more groups to meet their fundamental human needs--needs for such things as identity, security, dignity, or control. Often, however, the importance of these needs is overlooked, and conflicts are defined in material terms only.
Incompatible Frames
Often, one party will define a conflict in terms of negotiable interests (that is, material things that can be traded, such as wealth or land), while another defines the conflict in terms of rights, values, or needs (all of which are intangible things that are not usually considered negotiable). While such disagreements do not make resolution completely impossible, they do make it harder to obtain.
Overly Competitive Approaches to a Conflict
People often approach disputes in a very competitive, win-lose way. They assume that the only way they can win is if the other side loses. Consequently, they are very competitive, seeking the best possible outcome for themselves, without considering how this will affect people on the other side.
"Into-the-Sea" Framing
Sometimes, disputants seem to want their opponent to disappear forever, as if they could just be pushed "into the sea." This kind of framing can lead to genocide or to efforts to force opponents into exile. In less extreme situations, this problem may lead a party to demand concessions that their opponent cannot possibly accept. When conflicts are approached in this way, protracted confrontation becomes inevitable.
De-Humanization of Opponents
Violent, catastrophic confrontations seldom occur unless the contending parties have de-humanized one another. Once this de-humanization occurs, opponents are seen as having no legitimate rights and any atrocities are considered justifiable. The Geneva Conventions limit this effect somewhat by setting minimal standards for the treatment of combatants. However, history has shown many examples of horrific treatment of combatants and civilians both within and outside the context of war.
Conflict Emergence
Conflicts are not really identified as problem until the "emerge" from a latent state to a manifest state. How this occurs is a major determinant of the constructiveness or destructiveness of the conflict as it plays out.
Not My Problem
Conflicts often arise when one person or group seeks to change the behavior of another, but the other does not acknowledge that a problem exists or maintains that it is not their responsibility. They are, therefore, likely to refuse to participate in any efforts to resolve the issue.
Framing Conflict Itself as the Problem
Often people assume that any conflict is abnormal and bad. However, conflict is a normal and unavoidable part of all relationships and societies. It is even essential for the healthy functioning of a relationship or social group, because conflict allows people to adapt to new situations and invent new approaches to problems. What is bad (though also not abnormal) is the destructive ways people commonly deal with conflicts.
Ambiguous Goals
Often people who are confused about what a conflict is really about or what is important to them will have ambiguous (that is, confused) goals. This often results in ineffective actions which confuse or even enrage the other side, often needlessly. The same thing can occur with third parties who enter a conflict to "help." If they do not have clear goals for their for their activities, they can easily do more harm than good.
Failing to Identify Available Options for Dealing with the Situation
Often people involved in a conflict will assume that there is only one effective way of dealing with the situation. If they are used to using force to get their own way, they will assume that force is the only available option. If they are lawyers, they may assume legal action is the only option. If they are mediators, they may assume mediation (or negotiation) is the only available approach, without considering the possibility that another approach would be more effective.
SCOPING PROBLEMS
Problems determining who is involved, what they think, and the context or the environment of the conflict.
For more information about any of these topics, click on the title.
Failing to Identify All of the Other Parties
In complex conflicts involving multiple people and groups, it is easy to overlook some people who are likely to be affected by the conflict. If a "solution" is reached which ignores these peoples' interests or harms them significantly, these "quiet" or hidden groups are likely to emerge and block the agreement.
Failing to Identify All of the Issues in a Conflict
Disputants often overlook issues which are important to others, but are not important to themselves. People may not realize that there is more than one way to see a situation, or that other people or groups may define the problem in a different way.
Failure to Identify Opponent's Options1
Parties often fail to identify all of the options that are available to their opponents. They may assume that their opponents will simply give in because they have no viable options. Or, they may assume that their opponents will fight to the end, unwilling to work out a mutually agreeable settlement, when that approach would actually be desired by the other side.
Differing Definitions of "Justice"
Often conflicts involve different definitions of justice. What seems "just" or "fair" to one group very often seems unjust to an opposing group. Often the prevailing definition of justice is set by the group with the most power, while low-power groups see their inferior position as unjust.
Ignoring the Conflict History or Current Related Disputes
Sometimes people think that the dispute they are involved in is new or unique, when it is actually part of a conflict or the reappearance of a long-term conflict. Understanding the importance of the way the conflict was handled in the past is key to being able to confront it effectively in the present. In addition, conflicts do not stand alone, but are often related to on-going political, economic, social, or cultural situations. Disputants must be aware of the importance of related conflicts if they are to be able to confront their own conflict constructively.
Inadequate Information Gathering
When conflicts are complex--involving a large number of disputants and/or issues--parties must be able to gather a great deal of information before they can plan an effective confrontation strategy. Often, time or resource limitations prevent adequate information gathering. In other circumstances, information is collected, but it is interpreted incorrectly. In either case, the result is likely to inhibit effective action.