All of these give a very good insight of the way conflicts happen and grow. However, to better understand which model is more applicative and represents our day to day and normal lives better, let us take an example.
The Phase Models Perspective shows how a conflict progresses through a number of stages. Different theories here give different stages however the basic build-up is the same. It starts with a conflict that is not being solved by talking it out. Then it goes on to the point where it becomes a problem of ego and viewpoints become standpoints. In the next stage the people involved in the conflict look for concrete actions to do something about the conflict. Then you start stereotyping everything negative with the person you have a conflict with. After that it is stated that the cognitive reasoning of the people involved in the conflict reduces to that of 6-year olds because even though they know the others perspective they can no longer see it as a reasonable option. After that the conflict reaches an unrealistic peak where both of the parties think theyre right and no way can they lose in court or by the verdict of a third person. Both parties want total control of the situation. This situation ends when either party reaching physical or mental exhaustion. In the middle of this whole process at any point the parties may seek mediation. When mediating it should be considered well what point of conflict the parties are in as that determines how to deal with it.
In real life, I think that conflict is not always so orderly. And yes the context in a lot of ways determines how the conflict is going to unfold. Also in normal life we see that mediation is usually done in the first few stages. For example, if two friends have a fight about a project that theyre doing together and they have an argument about how to go about it. The conflict will say start from the differences in opinion and most probably it will be mediated at that point only by a third friend. This third friend will calm the situation down and reasonably find a solution with the end result that one of the friend will have to compromise at one time.
The context matters in the way that if the two people who were in the conflict arent friends and already have a little contention between them there are a lot of chances the conflict will get escalated. In this case, a common friend of the parties will need to intervene in the situation. However, without an intermediary the conflict can result in physical fights and the parties can get hurt.
The field theory states that a persons behavior is a result of his own disposition as well as the nature of the environment they are present in. Without understanding these fields in which the person is present we can not totally comprehend the behavior of people.
The term contriently interdependent has been used which in most simple terms means being competitively related. If the probability of goal attainment for A increases that means that the probability of goal attainment for B will decrease. This means that A and B are contriently interdependent. This means that if I give in or if I let the other person have their way that will result in lesser chances that I will get what I want and the probability of my goal attainment will decrease. This creates a very big conflict and creates a rigid standpoint for both parties who will now want to give in because giving in or seeking integrative outcomes will mean losing out on what you want. For example, during our university course registrations there was a clash between me and another person regarding the course timings. I wanted the course time changed to 1220 which would have been a convenient time for me as I would have been able to take back to back classes and not wait in between. This other class member wanted to get the course timings changed to an hour later that day due to his football practice. This situation was exactly as described in fields theory. Both of us were at a conflict and neither of us wanted to compromise as we had our own reasons. I had tried to argue and explain my viewpoint to the other course member but she being as stubborn as me remained fixated on her point. The final decision to resolve the conflict was given to the course professor who in the end decided to change the day of the class so that none of us had a problem anymore.
Reciprocity theory states and explains that the actions of humans are reciprocated in a way that if you act positively towards a person that person will act positively towards you and if you act negatively towards a person that person will act negatively towards you. However, there are exceptions to this rule and sometimes people may act positively when the other is acting negatively or vice-versa. For example, once my childhood friend and I had a very big fight over football match. For some time I remained passionate about my viewpoint just like my friend, however after a while I thought of our lifelong friendship and decided to respond positively to my friends negative behavior. However, in some situations positive behaviors is reciprocated with negative behavior. This happens mostly in situations where there are preconceived notions about the other persons dispositions and this escalates the conflict and takes it to higher stages of conflict. However, when one party takes the compensatory role the conflict dies down soon and no serious damage is done.
In my opinion compensation is a good option and we should try to do that because most of the time positive behavior is rewarded by positive behavior. However, there are some instances when positive behavior is not returned by positive behavior. In those situations going on compensating is a foolish mistake no one should make. We should all draw lines for ourselves and until that line if the other person goes on being negative and selfish we should start reciprocating.
All three theories give us perspectives that we see in different situations. However, in my opinion and experience I have seen the field theory to be of most significance and most relevant. In our daily dealings we see that the same occurrence may happen with different people but the way it is perceived and looked at it different. Why These differences are accounted for by the fields in which one is present at different times. The phase models perspective although gives a nice stage by stage description of the conflict fails to look into this important point and looks at conflicts in a very orderly fashion disregarding the fluid unpredictable manner of daily life. The reciprocity theory in my opinion is a very general overview of how people react to each other which can be negative or positive and doesnt really give an insight into the relationships between the people or the fields and atmosphere present
The Phase Models Perspective shows how a conflict progresses through a number of stages. Different theories here give different stages however the basic build-up is the same. It starts with a conflict that is not being solved by talking it out. Then it goes on to the point where it becomes a problem of ego and viewpoints become standpoints. In the next stage the people involved in the conflict look for concrete actions to do something about the conflict. Then you start stereotyping everything negative with the person you have a conflict with. After that it is stated that the cognitive reasoning of the people involved in the conflict reduces to that of 6-year olds because even though they know the others perspective they can no longer see it as a reasonable option. After that the conflict reaches an unrealistic peak where both of the parties think theyre right and no way can they lose in court or by the verdict of a third person. Both parties want total control of the situation. This situation ends when either party reaching physical or mental exhaustion. In the middle of this whole process at any point the parties may seek mediation. When mediating it should be considered well what point of conflict the parties are in as that determines how to deal with it.
In real life, I think that conflict is not always so orderly. And yes the context in a lot of ways determines how the conflict is going to unfold. Also in normal life we see that mediation is usually done in the first few stages. For example, if two friends have a fight about a project that theyre doing together and they have an argument about how to go about it. The conflict will say start from the differences in opinion and most probably it will be mediated at that point only by a third friend. This third friend will calm the situation down and reasonably find a solution with the end result that one of the friend will have to compromise at one time.
The context matters in the way that if the two people who were in the conflict arent friends and already have a little contention between them there are a lot of chances the conflict will get escalated. In this case, a common friend of the parties will need to intervene in the situation. However, without an intermediary the conflict can result in physical fights and the parties can get hurt.
The field theory states that a persons behavior is a result of his own disposition as well as the nature of the environment they are present in. Without understanding these fields in which the person is present we can not totally comprehend the behavior of people.
The term contriently interdependent has been used which in most simple terms means being competitively related. If the probability of goal attainment for A increases that means that the probability of goal attainment for B will decrease. This means that A and B are contriently interdependent. This means that if I give in or if I let the other person have their way that will result in lesser chances that I will get what I want and the probability of my goal attainment will decrease. This creates a very big conflict and creates a rigid standpoint for both parties who will now want to give in because giving in or seeking integrative outcomes will mean losing out on what you want. For example, during our university course registrations there was a clash between me and another person regarding the course timings. I wanted the course time changed to 1220 which would have been a convenient time for me as I would have been able to take back to back classes and not wait in between. This other class member wanted to get the course timings changed to an hour later that day due to his football practice. This situation was exactly as described in fields theory. Both of us were at a conflict and neither of us wanted to compromise as we had our own reasons. I had tried to argue and explain my viewpoint to the other course member but she being as stubborn as me remained fixated on her point. The final decision to resolve the conflict was given to the course professor who in the end decided to change the day of the class so that none of us had a problem anymore.
Reciprocity theory states and explains that the actions of humans are reciprocated in a way that if you act positively towards a person that person will act positively towards you and if you act negatively towards a person that person will act negatively towards you. However, there are exceptions to this rule and sometimes people may act positively when the other is acting negatively or vice-versa. For example, once my childhood friend and I had a very big fight over football match. For some time I remained passionate about my viewpoint just like my friend, however after a while I thought of our lifelong friendship and decided to respond positively to my friends negative behavior. However, in some situations positive behaviors is reciprocated with negative behavior. This happens mostly in situations where there are preconceived notions about the other persons dispositions and this escalates the conflict and takes it to higher stages of conflict. However, when one party takes the compensatory role the conflict dies down soon and no serious damage is done.
In my opinion compensation is a good option and we should try to do that because most of the time positive behavior is rewarded by positive behavior. However, there are some instances when positive behavior is not returned by positive behavior. In those situations going on compensating is a foolish mistake no one should make. We should all draw lines for ourselves and until that line if the other person goes on being negative and selfish we should start reciprocating.
All three theories give us perspectives that we see in different situations. However, in my opinion and experience I have seen the field theory to be of most significance and most relevant. In our daily dealings we see that the same occurrence may happen with different people but the way it is perceived and looked at it different. Why These differences are accounted for by the fields in which one is present at different times. The phase models perspective although gives a nice stage by stage description of the conflict fails to look into this important point and looks at conflicts in a very orderly fashion disregarding the fluid unpredictable manner of daily life. The reciprocity theory in my opinion is a very general overview of how people react to each other which can be negative or positive and doesnt really give an insight into the relationships between the people or the fields and atmosphere present
No comments:
Post a Comment