In many communities police receive calls for minor disputes from people who either live together or involve neighbors. One urban police chief explained to me that such calls are both expensive and nonproductive. Each, he said, might take two officers off other calls and feel they don’t have the proper amount of time or experience to deal with minor disputes other than to try and calm the situation down.

Some communities have explored options, including mediation training for officers. This certainly expands their skills to deal with minor disputes, but it still takes them away from more serious calls. Several communities provide officers with referral information to local mediation centers, but with this approach, the disputing parties are on their own to contact a mediation center.

Dayton, Ohio, has just announced a new option: Dayton plans to send unarmed mediators to minor, nonviolent calls. According to Dan Kornfield, founder of and project manager of this new program, Dayton dispatchers receive approximately 150 calls to 911 each week that are appropriate for mediation. As the program is envisoned, the dispatcher will transfer possible mediation cases to a specialized screener who will determine if mediation is appropriate.

Initially calls involving juvenile concerns, noise complaints, neighbor disputes, barking dogs, panhandling, roommate troubles, partying, family arguments and loitering will be considered for mediation. 

When the two-person mediation team arrives on the scene their first priority is to evaluate the situation for safety and call for officers if needed. Then the mediators will assist the parties resolving the underlying sources of the conflict. The mediators have more time to listen to both sides and connect people to services they might need for help.

The program should not only benefit the people in their disputes, but free officers for more serious calls, like violent crimes and other dangerous scenarios.

More and more communities are using mental health experts and social workers for calls involving mental illness, drug addition, homelessness and nonviolent crises. But Dayton’s program may be the first to formally enlist mediators in community disputes.

The concept of conflict styles is commonly understood today. Conflict style refers to the action a person is likely to employ in a dispute. Dual-concern models have become popular because they suggest two dimensions to explain the differences. One is concern for self and the second is concern for others. When the two dimensions are visualized as axes, five styles are identified:

1 – Avoiding (sometimes referred to as withdrawing) is low concern for assertiveness and for others. It means denying the conflict exists or otherwise withdrawing from dealing with it. 

2 – Accommodating (sometimes referred to as obliging or smoothing) represents a high degree of concern for the relationship and low concern for self or unassertive. At its extreme, the accommodating style means doing whatever the other party wants in order to maintain the relationship and, in a sense, surrendering power to the other party.  

3 – Competing  (sometimes referred to as dominating or forcing) is assertive with a low concern for the relationship. In competition, we pursue our own goals at the expense of the goals of others. 

4 – Compromising conflict style reflects some intermediate degree of concern for self and for the other. Compromising is being willing to give something in order to get something.  

5 – Collaborating (sometimes referred to as integrating or problem solving) means working together to reach a solution that completely satisfies both parties. The collaborating conflict style reflects a high level of concern for one’s own goals and the goals of others. 

Critical for understanding and using the conflict styles model is to recognize that one is not necessarily the most effective compared to another. The appropriate style depends on the two factors the model identifies—How important is it to win? And How important is maintaining the relationship? 

The popular acceptance of the dual concern model is also limiting. Other conflict styles are commonly used in cultures other than the U.S.

For example, other conflict styles are: 

Superficial Compliance: When personal goals are important the person will appear to smooth over the dispute and appease the other party with face-giving gestures, but privately will pursue goals by covert and indirect means.  

Concessional Obliging: When harmony enhancement is high, one can decide to make concessions graciously and forego discussion and debate that can involve friction.   

Superficial Harmony: Smoothing, face-giving behaviors and some degree of passive noncompliance. The result is a state of superficial harmony in order that the status quo of the relationship be maintained, although the problem may remain unsolved. The underlying motivation is different than in the Western conflict avoidance style.   

So, what is the best conflict style? It all depends on the parties’ objectives.