PRECONCEPTIONS ABOUT CONFLICT II:Cultural beliefs about interpersonal conflict, Why strategies of change fail

<< PRECONCEPTIONS ABOUT CONFLICT I:Pedagogical development, Pressures against Innovation

CONFLICT DIAGNOSIS:Who Needs to Know About Conflict Diagnosis?, Steps in Conflict Diagnosis >>

Conflict Management HRM624

Lesson 5

PRECONCEPTIONS ABOUT CONFLICT II

Quotations

If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will escape a hundred days of sorrow.

(A Chinese proverb)

Do not find fault, find a remedy.

Henry Ford

The greatest glory in living lies not in falling, but in rising every time we fall. Nelson Mandela

Bronfenbrenner's Theory of Social Ecology

Uri Bronfenbrenner, an eminent developmental psychologist, named the overall social structure that acts as

a source of blueprints for individuals the macrosystem. The macrosystem includes the important institutions

in which we operate- the court system, the governmental structure and so on. In his influential theory of

Social Ecology, Bronfenbrenner postulated that there is a synergistic relationship between the macro system

and the individual.

Bronfenbrenner's theory defines complex "layers" of environment, each having an effect on a child's

development.This theory has recently been renamed "bioecological systems theory" to emphasize that a child's

own biology is a primary environment fueling her/his development. The interaction between factors in the

child's maturing biology, his immediate family/community environment, and the societal landscape fuels

and steers his development. Changes or conflict in any one layer will ripple throughout other layers. To

study a child's development then, we must look not only at the child and her immediate environment, but

also at the interaction of the larger environment as well.

The macro system is structured to reflect the cultural belief systems of its inhabitants-that is because a

society is composed of its individual members, and their collective efforts maintain the macro system. The

macro system's structure generates situations in which individuals, to survive and do well, must adopt

blueprints and use tools consistent with the overall cultural belief systems.

Significance for the study of ADR in USA

Before embarking on a study of conflict and the processes of resolving it, it is necessary to appreciate that

people- particularly from westernized cultures, such as the United States- have a narrow perspective on

what conflict is and how it is best managed and resolved.

Approach to the handling of interpersonal conflict

a. Highly individualistic

b. Featuring adversarial resolution of most disputes

c. Reflected in a wide variety of societal institutions and policies

Cultural beliefs about interpersonal conflict

a. Role of religion

b. Conflict as battle

Tendency to conceptualize interpersonal conflict as a competition

Tendency to conceptualize interpersonal conflict as a "zero-sum" situation

Important factor in the underuse of "value-enlarging" processes, such as principled

negotiation and facilitative mediation

Individual beliefs vs globalization, Parents vs children are some of the examples

Adversarial approach in USA

In the American system of government, the formalized structure built to handle disputes that people have

been unable to resolve on their own is the judicial system. Of all the social systems that reflect the

competitive/adversarial blueprint for conflict resolution, the American judicial system is the most stark.

Conflict Management HRM624

American legal process is an adversary process built on the notion that justice is achievable only through

competition. The judicial system even has a name reflective of this blueprint: the adversary system.

Members of the culture acquire the belief that this individualistic, adversarial approach is "best" in that

These cultural preferences and structures tend to be invisible to inhabitants.

Developing individuals to use adversarial for their survival and to flourish in the new

environment.

Most opportunities to deal with conflict are set within institutional structures that

encourage this approach.

For example, how is conflict resolution portrayed on TV and in movies? How does our

government handle conflict?)

Develop individuals' capacity by practice to execute innovative ways to handle conflict.

Role of stress and emotion in creating threat for a disputant.

Role of stress and emotion in creating the sense that the other `disputant' is threatening to one's well being

and goals is following.

· Fear, anger, depression, and urge for happiness lead to negative stereotyping of other disputants

and the belief that their objectives are at odds with one's own objectives. (Zero sum situation)

· Tendency for social perception during conflict to produce overly simplified, demonizing and

negative portrait of other disputant.

· Ambiguity of interpersonal conflict and ambiguous behavior is taken to be true.

· (Happy family- discuss as an example)

ADR

ADR can be thought of as a radically innovative set of ways and means and a radically different method for

the resolution of conflict imposed on a culture featuring an adversarial and individualistic approach to

dispute resolution.

ADR innovation is often seen through the "lens" of the traditional adversary system of course this

typically leads to failure, causing its users to reject ADR.

When ADR processes are adopted, often adversarial features are added to them, which dilute their

effectiveness.

Why strategies of change fail (ADR failure)

Following are the four reasons of why strategies of change fail:

a) Resistance and lack of support from others

b) Application of existing (traditional) ways and means, rather than innovative solutions

c) Lack of proficiency in using innovative tools

d) Support by social structures of traditional ways to resolve disputes.

There is a tendency for individuals to attribute failures of innovation to the superiority of the traditional

approach rather than to the four reasons given above.

Conflict Management HRM624

How the Conflict

Social institutions reflect predominant

Blueprint

adversarial (Invisible Veil) blueprint

Perpetuates Itself

Individuals usually

Powerful and influential people

experience

(lawmakers, judges, school

blueprint-consistent

administrators, etc.) apply

social institutions

adversarial blueprints and tools

Individuals get

when they maintain and reform

lots of practice

social institutions

applying

People transmit

adversarial tools

adversarial blueprints

Some of

and tools to their

these

children through their

children

parenting styles and

grow up

Individuals

actions

to be

become proficient

Individuals

leaders

using adversarial

have their

tools

Invisible Veil

beliefs

People trying to apply alternative blueprints find they don't

confirmed

work as well, because

(1) They apply unsuitable tools,

(2) They use suitable tools without proficiency, and

(3) Social structures are designed to support the adversarial

blueprint only

Mukhtaran Mai

ADR in USA

Lawyers and the American Legal System

American "adversary legal system" reflects individualistic, adversarial cultural values.

Legal disputing tradition assumes that truth and justice are best obtained via the clash of legal adversaries.

There is no empirical evidence that truth is best obtained in this manner the authoritative pronouncements

on this issue are judicial, not empirically grounded.

(Fuller and Randall do make an argument that an adversary presentation prevents bias but it does not follow

that truth will win out, only that a more unbiased result will be obtained.)

Some opinion research of legal and business professionals suggests that there is not a strong belief in the

ability of the adversary system to produce truth.

Lawyers are steeped in adversary tradition beginning with their legal education. Lawyers develop a high

degree of mastery over the use of adversarial tools. As would be predicted, this level of mastery is

accompanied by a narrowing of beliefs about how best to handle interpersonal conflict.

Basic assumptions (beliefs) of the lawyer's standard philosophical map:

Following are the basic assumptions about lawyer's philosophical map.

Zero-sum nature of all disputes.

Applying some general rule of law will resolve interpersonal conflict.

The complaint Riskin makes about the lawyer's standard philosophical map is that while these beliefs will be

true for some disputes they are not as widely applicable as many lawyers assume.

Because adversary processes have a number of damaging consequences, they should not be overused, and if

adversary processes are assumed to be "best," they will be.

Conflict Management HRM624

Legal System in USA

Legal system in USA reflects societal dominant adversarial milieu. Assumption is that justice is achievable

only through a clash between adversaries or individuals.

Lawyer's Standard Philosophical Map

Lawyer's Standard Philosophical Map given by `Len Riskin' has the following assumptions

a. Disputes are zero-sum

b. Disputes must be submitted to a third party, whose decision must be based on the application of law.

Limitations of Lawyer's Standard Philosophical Map

Over-application of assumptions

Failure to see or other appreciates factors that can impact dispute resolution.

Table of Contents: