3. Explain the Sources and Process of conflict.

Discuss various conflict-avoidance strategies

being followed by an organization, citing example from the organization you are working
in or any organization you are familiar with. Briefly describe the organization you are
referring to.

Sources of Conflict and Methods of Conflict Resolution

Introduction:
Conflict occurs between people in all kinds of human relationships and in all social settings. Because
of the wide range of potential differences among people, the absence of conflict usually signals the
absence of meaningful interaction. Conflict by itself is neither good nor bad. However, the manner in
which conflict is handled determines whether it is constructive or destructive (Deutsch & Coleman,
2000).
Conflict is defined as an incompatibility of goals or values between two or more parties in a
relationship, combined with attempts to control each other and antagonistic feelings toward each other
(Fisher, 1990). The incompatibility or difference may exist in reality or may only be perceived by the
parties involved. Nonetheless, the opposing actions and the hostile emotions are very real hallmarks of
human conflict.
Conflict has the potential for either a great deal of destruction or much creativity and positive social
change (Kriesberg, 1998). Therefore, it is essential to understand the basic processes of conflict so
that we can work to maximize productive outcomes and minimize destructive ones.
This paper will briefly describe some common sources of conflict, the levels of social interaction at
which conflict occurs, and the general strategies of approaching conflict that are available.

Sources of Conflict:
Early reviews in the field of conflict resolution identified a large number of schemes for describing
sources or types of conflict (Fink, 1968; Mack & Snyder, 1958). One of the early theorists on
conflict, Daniel Katz (1965), created a typology that distinguishes three main sources of conflict:
economic, value, and power.
1. Economic conflict involves competing motives to attain scarce resources. Each party wants to get
the most that it can, and the behavior and emotions of each party are directed toward maximizing its
gain. Union and management conflict often has as one of its sources the incompatible goals of how to
slice up the “economic pie”.
2. Value conflict involves incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies – the preferences, principles and
practices that people believe in. International conflict (e.g., the Cold War) often has a strong value
component, wherein each side asserts the rightness and superiority of its way of life and its political-
economic system.
3. Power conflict occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximize the amount of influence
that it exerts in the relationship and the social setting. It is impossible for one party to be stronger
without the other being weaker, at least in terms of direct influence over each other. Thus, a power
struggle ensues which usually ends in a victory and defeat, or in a “stand-off” with a continuing
state of tension. Power conflicts can occur between individuals, between groups or between nations,
whenever one or both parties choose to take a power approach to the relationship. Power also enters
into all conflict since the parties are attempting to control each other.
It must be noted that most conflicts are not of a pure type, but involve a mixture of sources. For
example, union- management conflict typically involves economic competition, but may also take the
form of a power struggle and often involves different ideologies or political values. The more sources
that are involved, the more intense and intractable the conflict usually is.
Another important source of conflict is ineffective communication. Miscommunication and
misunderstanding can create conflict even where there are no basic incompatibilities. In addition,
parties may have different perceptions as to what are the facts in a situation, and until they share
information and clarify their perceptions, resolution is impossible. Self-centeredness, selective
perception, emotional bias, prejudices, etc., are all forces that lead us to perceive situations very
differently from the other party. Lack of skill in communicating what we really mean in a clear and
respectful fashion often results in confusion, hurt and anger, all of which simply feed the conflict
process. Whether the conflict has objective sources or is due only to perceptual or communication
problems, it is experienced as very real by the parties involved.

Escalation of Conflict:
A final source of conflict is more additional than basic, that is, it comes in after the conflict has
started. Conflicts have a definite tendency to escalate, i.e., to become more intense and hostile, and to
develop more issues, i.e., what the parties say the conflict is about. Therefore, escalating conflicts
become more difficult to manage. The process of escalation feeds on fear and defensiveness.
Threat leads to counterthreat , usually with higher stakes at each go-round. Selective and distorted
perception justifies a competitive and cautious approach as opposed to a trusting and cooperative
one. Through Deutsch’s crude law of social relations (1973), competition breeds
competition, rather than cooperation. The self-fulfilling prophecy comes into play. Each party believes
in the evil intentions of the other and the inevitability of disagreement, and therefore takes
precautionary actions which signal mistrust and competitiveness (Blake, Shepard & Mouton, 1964).
When the other party then responds with a counteraction, this is perceived as justifying the initial
precautionary measure, and a new spiral of action and counteraction begins. Through the norm of
reciprocity, stronger attempts to control are met not only with stronger resistance, but more
contentious attempts to gain the upper hand.
With each succeeding spiral of conflict, polarization grows and the parties become more adamant and
intransigent in their approach to the situation. Even though the intensity of the conflict may moderate
for periods of time, the issues remain, and a triggering event induces conflictual behavior with negative
consequences, and the conflict has moved one more step up the escalation staircase. When parties
become “locked in” to a conflict they are usually unable to get out by themselves, and the intervention
of a third party in the role of arbitrator, mediator or consultant may be required (Fisher, 1972, 1997).

Levels of Conflict:
Conflict can occur at a number of levels of human functioning. Conflict in your head between
opposing motives or ideas is shown by your “internal dialogue” and is at the intrapersonal level.
Beyond that, the primary concern here is with social conflict, i.e., conflict between people whether
they are acting as individuals, as members of groups, or as representatives of organizations or nations.
Interpersonal conflict occurs when two people have incompatible needs, goals, or approaches in their
relationship. Communication breakdown is often an important source of interpersonal conflict and
learning communication skills is valuable in preventing and resolving such difficulties. At the same
time, very real differences occur between people that cannot be resolved by any amount of improved
communication. “Personality conflict” refers to very strong differences in motives, values or styles in
dealing with people that are not resolvable. For example, if both parties in a relationship have a high
need for power and both want to be dominant in the relationship, there is no way for both to be
satisfied, and a power struggle ensues. Common tactics used in interpersonal power struggles include
the exaggerated use of rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional
blackmail, and flattery or ingratiation. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the
point of relationship breakdown and termination.
Role conflict involves very real differences in role definitions, expectations or responsibilities
between individuals who are interdependent in a social system. If there are ambiguities in role
definitions in an organization or unclear boundaries of responsibilities, then the stage is set for
interpersonal friction between the persons involved. Unfortunately, the conflict is often
misdiagnosed as interpersonal conflict rather than role conflict, and resolution is then complicated
and misdirected. The emotional intensity is often quite high in role conflict since
people are directly involved as individuals and there is a strong tendency to personalize the
conflict.
Intergroup conflict occurs between collections of people such as ethnic or racial groups, departments
or levels of decision making in the same organization, and union and management. Competition for
scarce resources is a common source of intergroup conflict, and societies have developed numerous
regulatory mechanisms, such as collective bargaining and mediation, for dealing with intergroup
conflict in less disruptive ways. Social-psychological processes are very important in intergroup
conflict (Fisher, 1990). Group members tend to develop stereotypes (oversimplified negative beliefs)
of the opposing group, tend to blame them for their own problems (scapegoating), and practice
discrimination against them. These classic symptoms of intergroup conflict can be just as evident in
organizations as in race relations in community settings. Intergroup conflict is especially tense and
prone to escalation and intractability when group identities are threatened. The costs of destructive
intergroup conflict can be extremely high for a society in both economic and social terms.
Multi-Party Conflict occurs in societies when different interest groups and organizations have varying
priorities over resource management and policy development. These complex conflicts typically
involve a combination of economic, value and power sources. This complexity is often beyond the
reach of traditional authoritative or adversarial procedures, and more collaborative approaches to
building consensus are required for resolution (Cormick et al, 1996; Gray, 1989).
International conflict occurs between states at the global level. Competition for resources certainly
plays a part, but value and power conflict are often intertwined and sometimes predominate. The
differences are articulated through the channels of diplomacy in a constant game of give and take, or
threat and counterthreat, sometimes for the highest of stakes. Mechanisms of propaganda can lead to
many of the same social-psychological distortions that characterize interpersonal and intergroup
conflict.

Methods of Conflict Resolution:

Regardless of the level of conflict, there are differing approaches to deal with the incompatibilities
that exist. Conflict can result in destructive outcomes or creative ones depending on the approach that
is taken. If we can manage conflict creatively, we can often find new solutions that are mutually
satisfactory to both parties. Sometimes this will involve a distribution of resources or power that is
more equitable than before, or in creating a larger pool of resources or forms of influence than before.
Creative outcomes are more probable when the parties are interdependent, i.e., each having some
degree of independence and autonomy from which to influence the other, rather than one party being
primarily dependent on the other. Given interdependence, three general strategies have been identified
that the parties may take toward dealing with their conflict; win-lose, lose-lose, and win-win (Blake,
Shepard & Mouton, 1964).
The win-lose approach is all too common. People learn the behaviors of destructive conflict early in
life – competition, dominance, aggression and defense permeate many of our social relationships from
the family to the school playground. The “fixed pie” assumption is made, often incorrectly, that what
one party gains, the other loses. The strategy is thus to force the other side to capitulate. Sometimes,
this is done through socially acceptable mechanisms such as majority vote, the authority of the leader,
or the determination of a judge. Sometimes, it involves secret strategies, threat, innuendo – whatever
works is acceptable, i.e., the ends justify the means. There is often a strong we-they distinction
accompanied by the classic symptoms of intergroup conflict. The valued outcome is to have a victor
who is superior, and a vanquished who withdraws in shame, but who prepares very carefully for the
next round. In the long run, everyone loses.
The lose-lose strategy is exemplified by smoothing over conflict or by reaching the simplest of
compromises. In neither case is the creative potential of productive conflict resolution realized or
explored. Disagreement is seen as inevitable, so therefore why not split the difference or smooth over
difficulties in as painless a way as possible? Sometimes, this is indeed the reality of the situation, and
the costs are less than in the win- lose approach, at least for the loser. Each party gets some of what it
wants, and resigns itself to partial satisfaction. Neither side is aware that by confronting the conflict
fully and cooperatively they might have created a more satisfying solution. Or the parties may
realistically use this approach to divide limited resources or to forestall a win-lose escalation and
outcome.
The win-win approach is a conscious and systematic attempt to maximize the goals of both parties
through collaborative problem solving. The conflict is seen as a problem to be solved rather than a war
to be won. The important distinction is we (both parties) versus the problem, rather than we (one party)
versus they (the other party). This method focuses on the needs and constraints of both parties rather
than emphasizing strategies designed to conquer. Full problem definition and analysis and
development of alternatives precedes consensus decisions on mutually agreeable solutions. The parties
work toward common and superordinate goals, i.e., ones that can only be attained by both parties
pulling together. There is an emphasis on the quality of the long term relationships between the parties,
rather than short term accommodations. Communication is open and direct rather than secretive and
calculating. Threat and coercion are proscribed. The assumption is made that integrative agreements
are possible given the full range of resources existing in the relationship. Attitudes and behaviors are
directed toward an increase of trust and acceptance rather than an escalation of suspicion and hostility.
The win-win approach requires a very high degree of patience and skill in human relations and
problem solving.

Conclusion:
Conflict is an inevitable fact of human existence. If we work to understand and manage it
effectively, we can improve both the satisfaction and productivity of our social relationships.

THE CONFLICT PROCESS

The conflict process can be seen as comprising five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility,
cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes.

Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportu-nities for conflict
to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these con-ditions is necessary if conflict is to
surface. For simplicity’s sake, these conditions
(which also may be looked at as causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general
categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.4
Communication The communication source represents the opposing forces that arise from semantic
difficulties, misunderstandings, and noise in the communication channels. Much of this discussion can
be related back to our comments on communi-cation in Chapter 10.
A review of the research suggests that differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of
information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential
antecedent conditions to conflict. Evidence demonstrates that semantic difficulties arise as a result of
differences in training, selec-tive perception, and inadequate information about others. Research has
further demonstrated a surprising finding: The potential for conflict increases when either too little or
too much communication takes place. Apparently, an increase in commu-nication is functional up to a
point, whereupon it is possible to overcommunicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for
conflict. Too much information, as well as too little, can lay the foundation for conflict. Furthermore,
the channel chosen for communicating can have an influence on stimulating opposition. The filtering
process that occurs as information is passed between members and the divergence of commu-nications
from formal or previously established channels offer potential opportunities for conflict to arise.

Structure The term structure is used, in this context, to include variables such as size, degree of
specialization in the tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional clarity, member–goal
compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence among groups.
Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the group
and the more specialized its activi-ties, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict appear
inversely related, meaning the potential for conflict tends to be greatest when group members are
younger and when turnover is high.

A close style of leadership—tight and continuous observation with general control of others’ behaviors
—increases conflict potential, but the evidence is not particularly strong. Too much reliance on
participation may also stimulate conflict. Research tends to confirm that participation and conflict are
highly correlated, apparently because partici-pation encourages the promotion of differences. Reward
systems, too, are found to create conflict when one member’s gain is at another’s expense. And if a
group is dependent on another group (in contrast to the two being mutually independent) or if
interdependence allows one group to gain at another’s expense, opposing forces are stimulated.

Personal Variables As practical experience has taught us, some people are conflict oriented and others
are conflict aversive. Evidence indicates that certain personality types—for example, individuals who
are highly authoritarian and dogmatic—lead to potential conflict. Emotions can also cause conflict. For
example, an employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that
anger to her 9:00 A.M. meeting. The problem? Her anger can annoy her colleagues, which may lead to
a tension-filled meeting. In addition to personality traits, differing values can explain conflict. Value
differences are the best explanation of diverse issues such as prejudice and disagreements over one’s
contribution to the group, as well as the rewards one deserves. Say that John dislikes African-
Americans and Dana believes John’s position indicates his ignorance. Say that an employee thinks he is
worth $55,000 a year but his boss believes him to be worth $50,000. These are all value dif-ferences,
which are important sources for creating the potential for conflict. It is also important to note that
culture can be a source of differing values. For example, research indicates that individuals in Japan
and in the United States view conflict dif-ferently. Compared to Japanese negotiators, Americans are
more likely to see offers from their counterparts as unfair and to reject such offers.

Stage II: Cognition and Personalization

If the conditions cited in stage I negatively affect something that one party cares about, then the
potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage.

As our definition of conflict notes, perception is required. One or more of the parties must be aware of
the existence of the antecedent conditions. However, because a conflict is perceived does not make it
personalized. In other words, “A may be aware that B and A are in serious disagreement . . . but it may
not make A tense or anxious, and it may have no effect whatsoever on A’s affection toward B.”6 It is at
the felt level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension,
frustration, or hostility.

Stage III: Intentions

Intentions intervene among people’s perceptions and emotions and overt behaviors. These intentions
are decisions to act in a given way.
Intentions are separated out as a distinct stage because you have to infer the other’s intent to know how
to respond to that other’s behavior. A lot of conflicts are escalated merely by one party attributing the
wrong intentions to the other party. In addition, there is typically a great deal of slippage between
intentions and behavior, so behavior does not always accurately reflect a person’s intentions.

Exhibit 13-2 represents one author’s effort to identify the primary conf lict-handling intentions. Using
two dimensions—cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s
concerns) and assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns)
—we can identify five conflict-handling intentions:

3. Competing: assertive and uncooperative, such as when you strive to achieve your goal at the
expense of the other party achieving his.
 4. Collaborating: assertive and cooperative—intending to find a win–win solution that makes both
parties happy.
5. Avoiding: unassertive and uncooperative, such as when you avoid a conflict based on the hope it
will just go away.
6. Accommodating: unassertive and cooperative, such as when you give in just to please someone
else.
7. Compromising: mid-range on both assertiveness and cooperativeness, where the pie is sliced
down the middle).

People differ in the degree to which they generally rely on these strategies (e.g., some people are
competitive in most situations), but the approach also will vary by the situ-ation (e.g., a strategy one
intends to use in a conflict with a loved one will often differ from a conflict with strangers).

Stage IV: Behavior

When most people think of conflict situations, they tend to focus on stage IV because this is where
conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the
conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s
intentions, but they have a stimulus quality that is separate from intentions. As a result of
miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors sometimes deviate from original intentions.

It helps to think of stage IV as a dynamic process of interaction. For example, you make a demand on
me; I respond by arguing; you threaten me; I threaten you back; and so on. All conflicts exist
somewhere along this continuum. At the lower part of the continuum, we have conflicts characterized
by subtle, indirect, and highly con-trolled forms of tension, such as a student questioning in class a
point the instructor has just made. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the
continuum until they become highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this upper range.
For the most part, conflicts that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always
dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum.
Stage V: Outcomes
The action–reaction interplay among the conflicting parties results in consequences. As our model (see
Exhibit 13-1) demonstrates, these outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an
improvement in the group’s performance, or it may be dysfunctional in that it hinders group
performance.

Functional Outcomes How might conflict act as a force to increase group perfor-mance? It is hard to
visualize a situation in which open or violent aggression could be functional. Yet in a number of
instances, it’s possible to envision how low or moderate levels of conflict could improve the
effectiveness of a group. Because people often find it difficult to think of instances in which conflict
can be constructive, let’s consider some examples and then review the research evidence. Note how all
these examples focus on task and process conflicts and exclude the relationship variety.

Conflict is constructive when it:

■ improves the quality of decisions,

■ stimulates creativity and innovation,
■ encourages interest and curiosity among group members,
■ provides the medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released, and
■ fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change.

The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of deci-sion making by allowing all points,
particularly the ones that are unusual or held by a minority, to be weighed in important decisions.8
Conflict is an antidote for groupthink. It doesn’t allow the group to passively rubber-stamp decisions
that may be based on weak assumptions, inade-quate consideration of relevant alternatives, or other
debilities. Conflict challenges the status quo and therefore furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes
reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to
change.

You don’t have to look further than automobile behemoth General Motors to see a company that
suffered because it had too little functional conflict. Many of GM’s problems, from the late 1960s to
the late 1990s, can be traced to a lack of functional conflict. It hired and promoted individuals who
were yes-men, loyal to GM to the point of never questioning company actions. Managers were, for the
most part, homogenous: conservative white males raised in the midwestern United States who resisted
change: They preferred looking back to past successes rather than forward to new challenges. They
were almost sanctimonious in their belief that what had worked in the past would continue to work in
the future. Moreover, by sheltering executives in the company’s Detroit offices and encouraging them
to social-ize with others inside the GM ranks, the company further insulated managers from conflicting
perspectives.

Yahoo! provides a more recent example of a company that suffered because of too little functional
conflict.10 Begun in 1994, by 1999 Yahoo! had become one of the best-known brand names on the
Internet. Then the implosion of dot.com stocks hit. By the spring of 2001, Yahoo!’s advertising sales
were plunging and the company’s stock was down 92 percent from its peak. It was at this point that
Yahoo!’s most criti-cal problem became exposed: The company was too insulated and void of
functional conflict. It couldn’t respond to change. Managers and staff were too comfortable with each
other to challenge the status quo. This kept new ideas from percolating upward and held dissent to a
minimum. The source of the problem was the company’s CEO, Tim Koogle. He set the tone of
nonconfrontation. Only when Koogle was replaced in 2001, with a new CEO who openly challenged
the company’s conflict-free climate, did Yahoo! begin to successfully solve its problems.
Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of conflict, demonstrating that,
among established groups, performance tended to improve more when conflict occurred among
members than when fairly close agreement was preva-lent. When groups analyzed decisions made by
its individual members, investigators found the average improvement among the high-conflict groups
was 73 percent greater than that of those groups characterized by low-conflict conditions.11 Others
have found similar results: Groups composed of members with different interests tend to produce
higher-quality solutions to a variety of problems than do homogeneous groups.

Dysfunctional Outcomes The destructive consequences of conflict on a group’s or

organization’s performance are generally well known. A reasonable summary might state that
uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties, and eventually leads to
the destruction of the group. And, of course, a substantial body of literature documents how conflict—
the dysfunctional varieties—can reduce group effectiveness.13 Among the more undesirable
consequences are a retarding of communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of
group goals to the primacy of infighting among members. At the extreme, conflict can bring group
functioning to a halt and potentially threaten the group’s survival.

The demise of an organization as a result of too much conflict isn’t as unusual as one might expect. For
instance, one of New York’s best-known law firms, Shea & Gould, closed down solely because the 80
partners couldn’t get along.14 As one legal consultant familiar with the organization said, “This was a
firm that had basic and principled differences among the partners that were basically irreconcilable.”
That same consultant also addressed the partners at their last meeting: “You don’t have an economic
problem,” he said. “You have a personality problem. You hate each other!”

NEGOTIATION Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and

organiza-tions. There’s the obvious: Labor bargains with management. There’s the not so obvi-ous:
Managers negotiate with employees, peers, and bosses; salespeople negotiate with customers;
purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. And there’s the subtle: An employee agrees to answer a
colleague’s phone for a few minutes in exchange for some past or future benefit. In today’s loosely
structured organizations, in which members are increasingly finding themselves having to work with
colleagues over whom they have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a
common boss, negotiation skills become critical.

We define negotiation as a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and
attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.16 Note that we’ll use the terms negotiation and
bargaining interchangeably.
The Negotiation Process

Exhibit 13-5 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views negotia-tion as made up
of five steps:

1. Preparation and planning

2. Definition of ground rules
3. Clarification and justification
4. Bargaining and problem solving
5. Closure and implementation17
Preparation and Planning Before you start negotiating, you need to do your homework. What’s
the nature of the conflict? What’s the history leading up to this negotiation? Who’s involved, and what
are their perceptions of the conflict?

Conflict Avoidance Strategies

• Conflict occurs when two or more parties believe there is a threat to their individual needs,
interests or concerns. Conflicts involve disagreements and differences of opinion. Sometimes
misunderstandings exacerbate disagreements or create perceptions of disagreement that do not reveal
true conditions. Threatening situations elicit different kinds of responses from people. Some people
engage threats aggressively, while others may engage with diplomacy to resolve conflicts. People who
fear conflict may employ conflict avoidance strategies, because they fear pain or desire approval.
Swallow Feelings
A person who avoids conflict by concealing his feelings is known as a feeling-swallower. The tactic
involves concealing one's true feelings, emotions or opinions. A feeling swallower seeks approval from
others and values approval more than expressing personal pain or distress. Feeling swallowers may
smile while experiencing fear, pain or depression. Feeling swallowers do not work toward conflict
resolution and may allow others to take advantage, abuse or injure them.
Change Subject
Some people use a conflict avoidance strategy that attempts to conceal a point of conflict by
changing the subject. Subject-changes may believe that the issue or issues involved with a particular
conflict are too complex or difficult to deal with. Subject changers attempt to distract conflicting parties
by highlighting less contentious issues. Subject changers do not work toward conflict resolution and
may create a backlash by postponing or preventing resolution of important conflict issues.

Overt Avoidance
A person who goes out of her way to avoid conflict employs an overt conflict avoidance strategy.
These avoiders want to hide, retreat or escape from conflict. The overt avoider may alter her lifestyle
and behavior to avoid specific places, people or activities.

Self-Induced Self Deception

People use self-deception to protect themselves from themselves and from other things that may
harm them. Intentional self-deception is self-induced self-deception. Self-inducing self-deceivers
intentionally adopt false opinions or beliefs to avoid pain or disappointment. The self-induced self-
deceiving conflict avoider actually desires a particular outcome or resolution of a particular conflict, but
lies to himself about those desires to avoid conflict. These conflict avoiders may refuse to acknowledge
factual information and develop deep internal conflicts that lead to feelings of alienation and an
inability to know the self.
Examples of Conflict Avoidance
Conflict avoidance is a strategy that is used to conceal issues in relationships, at work or in
friendships. In relationships, conflict avoidance is often employed when a person doesn't want to
address a situation that poses a problem. Conflict avoidance differs in the workplace, where workers
employ this strategy to further their careers or keep issues from their boss or managers. Conflict
avoidance can be successful or can fail miserably, depending on the severity of the situation.

Compliance
Compliance has proven to be an unsuccessful way to avoid conflict in many situations. Many
people face this problem at work. When your supervisor gives you more work than you could
reasonably complete, you become a victim of a bullying boss.

Not Clearly Expressing Feelings

"Sugar-coating" words, or being unclear about and minimizing a situation, is a prime example
of conflict avoidance. When dealing with a challenging problem, confront the problem forthrightly,
without being concerned about hurting feelings. Though there is a line between being rude and being
upfront, it's better in the long run for people to know how you feel without misunderstanding what you
meant, especially if future plans or serious agreements are involved.

Ignoring the Issue

Simply pretending there isn't a problem may work for a while, but will eventually make the
situation much worse. Over time, a problem tends to progress and become more complicated than it
would have been if it had been solved at the outset.