WHY THE RELATIONSHIP STATUS MATTERS

What has become known as the dual concern model of conflict management was originally developed in the 1960s. The two that were identified were concern for self and concern for others. These described a person’s style of conflict management in terms of a high concern for one’s self and a low concern for the other. This was later refined in the 1970s to identify five styles of conflict management:

1.) conflict avoidance (low concern for self and for others)

2.) competition (high concern for self and low concern for others)

3.) accommodation (high concern for others and low concern for self)

4.) compromise (some degree of concern both for self and others);

5.) collaboration (high concern for self and for others).

An understanding of the dual concern model of conflict management can guide mediators or others helping individuals in conflict.

It’s long been understood that we only get into what is considered realistic conflict with those whom we have a relationship. An example of a non-realistic conflict is road rage. The parties do not know each other and have no relationship as individuals. Conflict between people who are in a relationship can vary depending on the importance of their conenction. A conflict between a consumer and a merchant does have a relationship dimension, but it is usually a weak relationship since the consumer can easily go elsewhere and the merchant can attract new customers. A conflict between business partners or between family members can be much more intense as the relationship is perceived to be special and not easily replaced. In fact, it is recognized that our most intense conflicts are with the people we care about the most.

How is this important to mediators? If the conflict is between parties with a weak and easily replaceable relationship, if the parties want to work toward a settlement they will typically move to trying to find a compromise solution. Probably neither party got everything they wanted, but they didn’t lose everything either. That’s acceptable to most people as a way to resolve the issues and move on.

The weakness of compromise as a dispute resolution strategy was long ago illustrated by Mary Parker Follett, an early, leading management consultant and the first woman to address the London School of Economics. Her example was simple: Assume you have two sisters fighting over an orange. The simple compromise solution is to cut it in half. But she points out a better way is to ask each sister why she wants the orange. One says she wants the rind for flavoring a cake; the other says she wants the pulp for its juice. In this case, the collaborative solution is simply to give one sister the rind and the other sister the pulp. They both come out total winners. Follett was an advocate for what became commonly known as collaboration.

In mediation, then, when the parties are in a long-term, strong relationship, a compromise solution may not be the most desirable one. Rather, it could repair and strengthen their relationship to help the parties find a collaborative solution so that both parties are satisfied. Collaboration results in a high degree of concern for both one’s self and the other party.

Parties in long term, important relationships range from neighbor-neighbor disputes to family squabbles to small business disagreements. As I tell my students, collaborative solutions are not always easy, but the benefits can be worth the effort.