How do you want to resolve our conflict?

Ron Claassen of the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno Pacific University has drawn a simple and elegant model of conflict resolution. He proposes four ways to resolve human conflict, based on how power is shared between the parties.
 
The first model of conflict resolution involves coercion or power over Other. The following diagram shows how one person is in the power circle while the other is not.

 
Examples of this model include employer-employee relationships, teachers over students, and parents over children. The line with the circle around it designates who has the power.

This model works well in limited situations such as emergencies, but is not a good long-term strategy.  We can relate this model to context, styles and goals by recognizing that in competitive climates, people will try to dominate each other with power.  This invariably leads to conflict and the outcome will be determined by who controls or wields the most power.  Similarly, a contending conflict style will tend to use this model of conflict resolution when possible.  The contentious Person will first try to dictate terms of the conflict resolution to Other.  Finally, this model is used when the conflict goal involves relationships as Person attempts to assert a superior hierarchical status over Other.

The second way to resolve conflict is to give a third person the power to decide the conflict. The following diagram shows how this might look. Notice that the person with the power is not a party to the conflict.

This might typically involve a parent deciding a conflict between siblings, a teacher resolving a conflict between students and a supervisor deciding a conflict between employees. The parties give up all of their control over the outcome of the conflict, but hope that, at some point in time, a third party will resolve the conflict.

Litigation and arbitration fall within this type of model.  Litigation resolves conflict by court decision.  The decision-maker is either a judge in a bench trial or a jury in a jury trial. In litigation, the decision-maker is required to decide the case based only upon the evidence of facts presented to it and in accordance with rules of law.  Person and Other are generally required to obtain professional representation because the rules of procedure, evidence, and substantive law are so complex.  While professional representation is essential in litigation, Person and Other both give up substantial control of the dispute to their respective representatives.  Person and Other have a difficult time assessing whether their representatives are being effective and have to pay fees that can be substantial.

Arbitration is similar to litigation except that the process is private, not public and the decision-maker is called an arbitrator.  Unlike judges and juries, arbitrators are not required to limit evidence or to follow the law when making a decision.  Arbitration can be faster than litigation, but the decisions are no more predictable.  In complex arbitrations, Person and Other need professional representation and face the same evaluation and control problems as faced in litigation.

This model is useful when there are severe power imbalances.  Nevertheless, it is costly and the outcome is always uncertain.  We find that competitive, contending climates and styles lend themselves to litigation and arbitration.  Ironically, competitors and contenders often want to retain control over the decision of the conflict, but give it up in this model.  They often confuse the metaphor of sports competition with this model.
 
Litigation and arbitration are not same as football, golf, or tennis.  In team or individual sports, the winner is determined by some objective score—touchdowns, strokes, or sets.  Person and Other engaged in sport compete directly against each other, and the better player wins by amassing more points.  In litigation and arbitration, however, the decision is made by a presumably impartial decision-maker that can only be influenced by Person and Other, but not controlled.  Thus, Person may put on an excellent case, but still lose because the decision-maker was not sufficiently influenced.  Since the mental processes of the decision-maker can never be known, the outcome is always unpredictable.  At least in football there will be clear winner and loser after the allotted time for play has expired.

The third way to resolve conflict is for the parties to resolve the conflict together.  When this becomes difficult, as it often is, parties can bring in a third party.  Notice in the diagram that the third party is outside of the power circle. 

The parties retain the power to decide how the conflict should be managed, resolved and transformed. This model includes mediation and peacemaking processes.

Mediation, in the classic legal sense, usually occurs after litigation has commenced.  The mediator is usually, but not necessarily, a lawyer or a retired judge and may or may not have special training in mediation practice.  In the typical mediation of a litigated dispute, the mediator will try to broker a compromise through negotiation between the lawyers of the parties.  Mediators can adopt a variety of styles of mediation, but most legal mediators tend to be evaluative. Evaluative mediation means that the mediator, after gathering some basic facts, may render his or her opinion about the strengths and weaknesses of the case.  Normally, the evaluation is focused on the objective facts and the range of remedies available to the parties.  Evaluative mediators may even attempt a prediction of the decision should the conflict proceed to trial. 
Evaluative mediators rarely concern themselves with the underlying conflict dynamics and are most interested in “settling” the case.  Many mediators say that they have done a good job if no party is happy with the result. In pure distributive bargaining situations, such as dealing with insurance companies, the approach can be effective.  However, it is counterproductive in relationship or identity-driven disputes.
The fourth model of conflict resolution is to talk it out.  This is the way almost all conflicts are resolved.

When faced with conflict, most people tend to start with Model 4.  If the conflict is not quickly resolved, one or both parties will move to Model 1, the power model.  Particularly if Person’s dominant conflict style is contentious, Person will attempt to coerce Other.  This often occurs in small businesses or workgroups when the owner or supervisor uses apparent social power to dictate how a conflict will be resolved. Person may use Model 1 out of a fear of exploitation.  Many business people believe that if they show too much cooperation, they will be perceived as a Yielder.  They tend to believe that being tough and tenacious is in their long-term financial interests.  They are wrong.  Research studies over the past 50 years have established that cooperative behavior provides higher long term profits than competitive behavior.