Module 9

course readings -

"Polarity Management" by Barry Johnson, Ph.D.

Chapter One: Teamwork Is Not a Solution

Polarity Management: Overview

● Definition: A framework for managing ongoing dilemmas (polarities) that cannot be

solved by choosing one side over the other. Instead, it involves balancing two
interdependent poles to harness their positive aspects while mitigating their negatives.
● Purpose: To maintain equilibrium between two opposing but complementary forces,
ensuring that neither side is neglected, which can lead to detrimental outcomes.

Individual vs. Team Polarity

● Poles:
○ Individual: Focuses on personal initiative, creativity, and uniqueness.
○ Team: Emphasizes collaboration, cohesion, and collective goals.
● Polarity Map Structure:
○ Four Quadrants:
■ L+ (Upper Left): Upside of Individual
■ R+ (Upper Right): Upside of Team
■ L- (Lower Left): Downside of Individual
■ R- (Lower Right): Downside of Team
○ Goal: Populate all four quadrants to understand the full spectrum of the polarity
and manage it effectively.

Creating the Polarity Map: Example from Workshop

1. Initial Focus: Team building was emphasized as a key initiative.

2. Manager's Concern: Perceived team emphasis as a complete shift away from individual
focus, leading to resistance.
3. Polarity Mapping Process:
○ Identify Upsides and Downsides:
■ Team (R+):
■ Cohesive Unit
■ Common Direction
■ Each Job Important
 ■ Synergistic Effect
■ Team Support
■ Personal Sacrifice
■ Individual (L-):
■ Isolated
■ No Common Direction
■ Only Rewarded "Home Runs"
■ No Synergistic Effect
■ No Team Support
■ Selfish "Me" Talk
4. Further Exploration:
○ Downside of Team (R-):
■ Excessive Conformity
■ Bland Sameness
■ Too Many Meetings
■ Stifled Individual Creativity
■ Team Burden
○ Upside of Individual (L+):
■ Uniqueness
■ Freedom
■ Individual Dreams and Goals
■ Individual Creativity
■ Care of Self

Key Concepts and Dynamics

1. Polarity Two-Step:
○ Step 1: Across and Up: Move from the downside of one pole to the upside of
the opposite pole.
○ Step 2: Down: As the organization embraces the upside of the new pole, it
eventually experiences the downside, necessitating a shift back.
○ Result: Creates an infinite loop, representing the ongoing balance required to
manage the polarity.
2. Crusading and Tradition-Bearing Forces:
○ Crusading Forces:
■ Advocate for shifting towards the upside of the opposite pole.
■ Identify and highlight the downsides of the current pole.
■ Provide energy and momentum for change.
○ Tradition-Bearing Forces:
■ Preserve the upside of the current pole.
■ Identify and caution against the downsides of the opposite pole.
■ Maintain stability and continuity within the organization.
3. Managing Polarities Effectively:
 ○ Avoid "Either/Or" Thinking: Recognize that both poles have valuable
contributions and are necessary for organizational health.
○ Balance and Integration: Strive to maintain the benefits of both poles while
minimizing their respective downsides.
○ Leadership Role: Leaders should facilitate the balance by supporting both
crusading and tradition-bearing forces, ensuring neither side dominates to the
detriment of the other.

Benefits of Polarity Management

● Enhanced Problem-Solving: By acknowledging and balancing both poles,

organizations can navigate complex issues more effectively.
● Reduced Resistance: Understanding the necessity of both poles helps in anticipating
and managing resistance.
● Sustainable Improvement: Instead of temporary fixes, polarity management fosters
long-term equilibrium and continuous improvement.
● Maximized Benefits: Leveraging the upsides of both poles leads to a more dynamic and
resilient organization.

Practical Implications

● Application in Team Building:

○ Recognize that promoting teamwork should not completely overshadow
individual contributions.
○ Foster an environment where team cohesion and individual creativity coexist.
○ Implement strategies that support both collective goals and personal
development.
● Avoiding Common Pitfalls:
○ Overemphasis on Team: Can lead to conformity, loss of creativity, and individual
resentment.
○ Overemphasis on Individual: Can result in isolation, lack of synergy, and
weakened team support.
● Continuous Monitoring: Regularly assess the balance between team and individual
focus to ensure both are thriving without undermining each other.

Summary of Chapter One

1. Distinction Between Problems and Dilemmas: Unlike solvable problems, dilemmas

require ongoing management to balance opposing forces.
 2. Structure of Polarity Map: A visual tool to map out the upsides and downsides of each
pole, facilitating comprehensive understanding and management.
3. Dynamics of Polarity Management: The natural tendency to oscillate between poles
emphasizes the need for continual balance rather than seeking a one-time solution.
4. Role of Forces: Crusading and tradition-bearing forces are essential for driving change
and preserving valuable aspects, respectively.
5. Effective Leadership: Successful polarity management hinges on the ability to integrate
and balance opposing forces, avoiding power struggles and fostering collaboration.

"The Circle of Conflict" Model from The Conflict Resolution Toolbox by

Gary T. Furlong

Circle of Conflict Overview:

● Purpose: The Circle of Conflict model is designed to identify the underlying causes or
"drivers" of conflict, offering a structured way to diagnose conflict and provide strategies
for resolution.
● Five Main Drivers of Conflict: The model outlines five key drivers that contribute to
conflict, which are:
○ Values
○ Relationships
○ Externals/Moods
○ Data
○ Structure

Key Concepts of the Circle of Conflict:

1. Values:

● Definition: Conflicts based on deeply held beliefs or values, such as ethics, morals, or
cultural norms.
● Characteristics:
○ Highly personal and emotionally charged.
○ Often seen in disputes over religion, ethics, or social issues like abortion or
marriage.
● Example: A workplace conflict where an employee feels their religious beliefs are not
being respected could create a value-based conflict.

2. Relationships:
 ● Definition: Past experiences or personal histories between parties that drive current
conflict.
● Characteristics:
○ Previous negative experiences, stereotypes, or poor communication often fuel
these conflicts.
○ Can result in repetitive negative behaviors or tit-for-tat retaliations.
● Example: A long-standing feud between two departments may stem from a history of
distrust or negative experiences.

3. Externals/Moods:

● Definition: External factors unrelated to the core substance of the dispute but which still
impact the conflict.
● Characteristics:
○ Could be psychological, physiological, or situational, such as stress, poor health,
or external economic conditions.
○ Examples include a "bad day" or negotiating during a financial crisis.
● Example: Negotiating labor contracts during a recession where the economic downturn,
not the parties themselves, is worsening the conflict.

4. Data:

● Definition: Conflict driven by inaccurate, incomplete, or misunderstood information.

● Characteristics:
○ Information asymmetry or differences in interpretation can fuel disagreements.
○ Data conflict may result from misinformation, assumptions, or lack of clear
communication.
● Example: A company dispute over sales projections where one party has incomplete
data, leading to misinformed decisions.

5. Structure:

● Definition: Conflicts arising from organizational or systemic issues, such as resource

limitations, authority problems, or poor organizational design.
● Characteristics:
○ Examples include limited resources (time, money), geographic constraints, and
unclear authority structures.
● Example: Employees feeling powerless to resolve an issue because they lack the
authority to make decisions.

Using the Circle of Conflict for Diagnosis:

 ● Diagnosing Conflict: Practitioners use the model to identify which of the five drivers are
contributing to the conflict, and how those drivers are interacting.
● Example Case: A case study involving Bob, Diane, and Sally showcases how multiple
conflict drivers can overlap:
○ Values: Gender-based discrimination claims between Bob and Diane.
○ Relationships: Previous arguments between Bob and Diane create ongoing
tension.
○ Externals/Moods: Organizational upheaval adds to the stress and distrust
among staff.
○ Data: Misunderstandings about promotion criteria fuel Bob's dissatisfaction.
○ Structure: Confusion over authority roles creates additional frustration between
Bob, Diane, and Sally.

Strategic Direction from the Circle of Conflict:

● Focusing Below the Line: The model advises practitioners to focus on the bottom three
drivers—Data, Structure, and Interests (a key component added to the model)—as these
are more tangible and resolvable.
● Avoid Escalation: Avoid spending too much time on Values, Relationships, or
Externals/Moods, as these tend to be harder to resolve directly.

Data Strategies:

● Have parties jointly assess and correct inaccurate information.

● Surface assumptions made about the data or other parties’ motives.
● Encourage parties to gather and share reliable information together.

Structure Strategies:

● Identify and address issues related to authority, roles, or resource limitations.

● Help parties negotiate structural changes that align priorities.
● Address responsibility and authority imbalances, particularly in hierarchical conflicts.

Interests Strategies:

● Identify and prioritize the interests (needs, wants, hopes, or fears) of all parties.
● Focus on shared or common interests to foster collaboration.
● Use trade-offs or negotiations to balance competing interests.

Case Study Application: The Spanish Estate:

 ● Conflict Summary: After the death of a father, four siblings dispute the division of the
estate, with Maria claiming personal effects and control over the father’s house. Tensions
arise from conflicting values, strained relationships, and structural issues within the
family.

Diagnosis Using the Circle of Conflict:

● Values: Maria and her siblings clash over traditional cultural roles and religious values.
● Relationships: Previous arguments and a lawsuit over access to their father created
significant distrust.
● Externals/Moods: Extended family members in Spain stirred up tensions.
● Data: Conflicting appraisals of the house's value and the father's competency during his
final years.
● Structure: Maria’s physical control over the house and lack of clear authority in
managing the estate complicate the resolution.

Strategic Interventions:

● Data: Arrange joint appraisals and address conflicting assumptions about the father’s
competency.
● Structure: Negotiate procedural agreements to reduce legal fees and appoint a trusted
relative in Spain to handle property valuation.
● Interests: Focus on shared interests, such as honoring the father’s legacy and
minimizing legal costs, while allowing Maria to buy the house at a fair price.

Practical Use of the Circle of Conflict:

● Effectiveness: The Circle of Conflict provides a clear, structured approach to diagnosing

and resolving conflict, applicable to various situations.
● Balance of Simplicity and Complexity: The model is easy to apply, while still offering
enough depth to explore multiple conflict drivers.
● Guidance for Practitioners: The model helps practitioners focus on areas where
collaborative problem-solving is most effective, avoiding prolonged engagement in
harder-to-resolve areas like values or personal relationships.

Topic 1 - Introducing Polarities

● Key Question: Can a yes/no conflict be turned into a both/and situation? Can what
seems like a conflict actually be a polarity to manage?
● Example:
 ○ A family where parents set strict rules (clarity) without adjusting for their
children's maturity leads to the children experiencing their parents as inflexible.
○ The next generation, in response, removes strict rules (flexibility), but the lack of
boundaries makes their children feel neglected.
○ The cycle repeats, with each generation swinging between the poles of clarity
and flexibility.
● Polarity Concept:
○ Clarity vs. Flexibility: Both are essential and need to be balanced. Each has its
upside and downside:
■ Clarity brings structure but can lead to rigidity.
■ Flexibility offers freedom but can lead to ambiguity.
● Conclusion:
○ These two aspects are not choices between right or wrong but must be
balanced.
○ Polarities require managing both sides to avoid the downsides of either extreme.

Topic 2 Digging Deeper into Polarities

1. Overview of Polarities

● Definition: Polarities involve managing two interdependent, opposing forces (e.g., clarity
and flexibility) that require balance.
● Key Idea: You must live with both sides of a polarity (e.g., clarity and flexibility), using
both, rather than choosing one over the other.
● Downside of Sticking to One Side:
○ Focusing only on clarity leads to rigidity.
○ Focusing only on flexibility leads to ambiguity.

2. Polarities Expressed as Yes/No Conflicts

● Polarities can appear as yes/no conflicts, but the true issue is deeper.
● Example:
○ A child wants to stay out late: "Can I stay out late?" (yes/no).
○ The real issue is the polarity of clarity (rules) vs. flexibility (freedom).
● The surface-level yes/no conflict masks the underlying polarity of differing values.

3. Conflicts vs. Polarities

● Problem: Can be solved by finding a solution (e.g., brainstorming solutions and reaching
a conclusion).
● Conflict: Requires resolution by finding common ground and agreement.
● Polarity: Can only be managed, not solved. It requires balance between opposing
values or forces.

4. Characteristics of Polarities
 ● Polarities represent disagreements about values, not just issues.
● Both/and thinking is required to manage a polarity, not either/or.
● Yes/no conflicts are often the visible manifestation of underlying polarities.

5. Managing Polarities

● Balance is key: You must seek benefits from both sides of the polarity.
● Integration of poles: To benefit from one side (e.g., clarity), you need to understand and
incorporate the other (e.g., flexibility).
● Risk of extremes: Overemphasizing one side (e.g., flexibility) can lead to an extreme
focus, missing the benefits of the other side (e.g., clarity).

6. Common Polarities in Society and Organizations

1. Self vs. Other:

○ Self-focus: Prioritizing personal needs over others.
○ Other-focus: Prioritizing the needs of others, potentially at the expense of
oneself.
2. Tradition vs. Change:
○ Tradition: Holding onto the past and resisting change.
○ Change: Embracing new ideas and rejecting traditions.
3. Critique vs. Encouragement:
○ Critique: Focusing on areas for improvement.
○ Encouragement: Emphasizing positive affirmation for good work.
4. Planning vs. Acting:
○ Planning: Over-focusing on preparation without taking action.
○ Acting: Taking action without sufficient planning.
5. Clear vs. Flexible:
○ Clarity: Setting clear rules and guidelines.
○ Flexibility: Adapting to changes and allowing freedom.
6. Autocratic vs. Participatory:
○ Autocratic: Decisions are made hierarchically without input from others.
○ Participatory: Decisions are made with input from all affected parties.
7. Being vs. Doing:
○ Being: Focusing on emotional and relational well-being.
○ Doing: Focusing on actions and external engagement, often to the detriment of
personal well-being.

7. Tradition Bearers vs. Change Activists

● Tradition bearers: Resist change to maintain the values and practices of the past.
● Change activists: Push for new ways of working to address the downsides of the
current system.
● These roles can lead to tension, with each side overemphasizing the upsides of their
position while ignoring the downsides of the opposing pole.
8. Conclusion on Polarities

● Polarities are ongoing: They are not resolved but continuously managed.
● Balance and understanding: Effective management requires understanding both poles
and working to integrate the benefits of each.

Topic 3: Introducing Conflict Drivers

● Theory of Conflict Drivers: Helps identify the root causes of conflict to focus the
resolution process effectively.
● Six Conflict Drivers:
○ Values: Differences in beliefs or priorities.
○ Structure: Organizational or systemic issues like roles or authority.
○ Interests: Individual wants, needs, and motivations.
○ Data: Lack of, or disagreement over, information.
○ Externals: Outside factors influencing the conflict (e.g., stress).
○ Relationships: Past experiences or personal histories affecting interactions.
● Importance of Understanding Drivers:
○ Agreement on Drivers: Both parties have clarity on what needs to be discussed.
○ Disagreement on Drivers: Exploration of drivers becomes the first step toward
conflict resolution.

Topic 4 Digging Deeper into Conflict Drivers

1. Value Conflicts

● Clues:
○ Differing criteria for right/wrong behavior.
○ Focus on determining truth vs. falsehood.
○ Value-driven conflicts feel ideological (e.g., social issues).
● Examples:
○ Work-related values: Expectations of effort at work or relationships with
subordinates.
○ Program for youth: Conflict between providing a safe space vs. being inclusive
to all, masking a deeper values-based polarity.
○ Religious organization: Disagreement over organizational mission likely reflects
value differences but may appear as a technical issue.

2. Relationship Conflicts

● Types:
 ○ Relationship as the core conflict.
○ External relationship issues fueling the conflict.
○ Relationship issues layering onto an existing conflict.
● Key Drivers:
○ Misperceptions/Stereotypes: Misjudging others’ intentions based on false
perceptions.
○ Poor Communication: The conflict might stem from communication failures
rather than the subject being discussed.
○ Repetitive Negative Behavior: Continuous negative behaviors (e.g., demeaning
language) drive conflict.
○ Relationship Patterns: Differences in personality (e.g., introvert vs. extrovert)
that create conflicting needs.
○ Past Experiences: Interpreting current behavior based on past relationships.
○ Assumptions about Behavior: Attributing negative intentions to another
person’s actions (attribution error).

3. Moods and Externals

● Definition: Factors unrelated to the substance of the dispute but influence the conflict.
● Examples:
○ Psychological history or personality differences can exaggerate a conflict.
○ External stressors or unrelated factors, such as work pressure or personal mood,
can escalate tensions.
○ Relationship or values issues can contribute to the core conflict but may also act
as external pressures.

4. Data Conflicts

● Drivers:
○ Lack of Information: One party may not have access to necessary data.
○ Misinformation: Conflicts arise when parties have incorrect or incomplete data.
○ Relevance of Information: Parties may prioritize and weigh information
differently based on their perspectives.
○ Interpretation of Data: People often interpret the same information differently,
leading to conflict.
○ Procedural Differences: Conflicts over how data or rules are applied, as seen in
legal disputes or workplace conflicts.

5. Structure Conflicts
 ● Sources:
○ Unequal Access to Resources: Conflicts arise over limited resources, such as
money or opportunities, leading to efforts to equalize access.
○ Power or Authority: Imbalances in power lead to conflicts over decision-making
and control.
○ Geographical or Environmental Barriers: Physical or environmental factors
hinder cooperation, making resolution difficult (e.g., segregation in communities).
○ Time Constraints: Lack of time to meet or complete tasks fuels conflict.

6. Interest Conflicts

● Types:
○ Substantive Interests: Conflicts over tangible resources, like land or water (e.g.,
Middle East conflict).
○ Procedural Interests: Disagreement over the process of resolving a conflict
(e.g., legal vs. mediation).
○ Psychological/Psycho-Social Interests: Fundamental human needs like
recognition, belonging, and security.
● Key Point: Interests can be used as a tool to resolve conflicts. By reframing drivers into
interests, parties can work toward resolution.

Module 10

Reading: Power in Conflict Resolution

1. Defining Power

● Power: The capacity to bring about change, either within oneself or in others. In conflict
situations, power is often what enables one party to influence the actions of another.
● Two forms of power:
○ Potential Power: The ability to act or influence, even if it's not currently being
used. For example, a leader may have the potential power to mobilize a group
but has not yet exercised this power.
○ Kinetic Power: The actual use of power or actions already taken. For example,
when a leader gives a command and it is followed, this is kinetic power.

Example:

● A political figure, such as the President, may have the potential to pass new laws (due
to authority and resources), but only when they actually pass a bill and enforce it does it
become kinetic power.
2. Understanding Power in Conflict

● Relative power is important in conflicts—it helps predict who may "win" or gain an
advantage. For example, in a legal dispute, the party with greater resources, better legal
representation, or stronger evidence may be considered more powerful.
● Power as Action: Power is often easier to measure through the actions it accomplishes.
If one party successfully forces another to change behavior, they have demonstrated
more power.

Example:

● In a workplace, a manager who can enforce deadlines and achieve compliance from
employees shows kinetic power through actions taken.

3. Power in Social and Political Contexts

● Power in society functions similarly to electricity—it can be potential (stored, not used)
or kinetic (active). Social and political power is complex but can be simplified: it is the
ability to make changes, either by influencing others or by changing oneself.

Example:

● Potential Power: A civil rights leader who can rally supporters has potential power, even
if not yet organizing a protest.
● Kinetic Power: When that leader successfully organizes a march that leads to policy
changes, they convert potential power into kinetic power.

4. Sources of Power (Gene Sharp's List)

Sharp outlines several key sources from which power is derived:

1. Authority: The perception that a person or institution has the legitimate right to issue
directives and have them obeyed.
○ Example: A police officer has authority through the legal system, which grants
them the power to enforce laws.
2. Human Resources: The number of supporters or followers a leader has, as well as their
proportion in the general population.
○ Example: A political party with a large voter base has significant human resource
power during elections.
3. Skills and Knowledge: Expertise and talents possessed by the leader or their team.
 ○ Example: In a corporate environment, a CEO with extensive industry knowledge
and strategic skills holds power through expertise.
4. Intangible Factors: Psychological and ideological factors, such as habits of obedience,
cultural attitudes, or shared beliefs.
○ Example: A dictator maintains power through psychological control, where
citizens are conditioned to obey out of fear or habit.
5. Material Resources: Control over wealth, property, natural resources, and
communication tools.
○ Example: A country with significant control over oil resources holds material
power in global trade negotiations.
6. Sanctions: The ability to punish or apply consequences.
○ Example: A teacher can impose sanctions on students by issuing detentions or
lowering grades for misconduct.

Example:

● In international diplomacy, a country with a large military (coercive power) and

significant economic resources (material power) can influence global events. The U.S.,
for example, uses both military strength and economic sanctions to exert power
internationally.

5. Forms of Power (Kenneth Boulding’s Metaphor)

Boulding uses the metaphor of the stick, the carrot, and the hug to describe different forms of
power:

1. Coercive Power (Stick): Power through the threat or use of force. It relies on superior
strength, often backed by military or physical might.
○ Example: A government threatening to imprison protesters if they do not
disperse is using coercive power.
2. Exchange Power (Carrot): Power that relies on rewards and incentives. One party gets
another to act by offering something in return.
○ Example: A company offers bonuses to employees who meet certain
performance goals, using rewards to influence behavior.
3. Integrative Power (Hug): Collaborative power based on mutual respect, loyalty, love, or
shared values. This form of power fosters cooperation rather than competition.
○ Example: A grassroots movement that builds power through collective action and
shared community goals demonstrates integrative power.

Example:
 ● In diplomacy, a country might use coercive power by threatening sanctions (stick), offer
trade deals as incentives (carrot), and build long-term alliances through mutual respect
and shared interests (hug).

6. Feminist Perspectives on Power

● Power Over: Domination and control over others, often achieved through coercion or
force.
○ Example: An authoritarian government exercising strict control over citizens
through laws and force represents “power over.”
● Power To: The capacity to effect change and achieve goals, without necessarily
controlling others.
○ Example: A social worker empowering marginalized communities to advocate for
their rights demonstrates "power to."
● Power With: Collaborative power achieved through partnership and cooperation.
○ Example: A community organization working together to solve local issues, like
improving public schools, demonstrates "power with."

7. The Power Strategy Mix (Paul Wehr)

● Power Strategy Mix refers to the combination of power forms (stick, carrot, hug) used to
achieve optimal results in a conflict.
○ If one party is open to negotiation, offering incentives (carrot) and fostering
cooperation (hug) might be enough to resolve the conflict.
○ If a party is resistant, a minor show of force (stick) combined with incentives
(carrot) may prompt negotiation.

Example:

● In labor negotiations, a company might threaten layoffs (stick), offer pay raises (carrot),
and encourage open dialogue (hug) to reach an agreement with unions.

8. Empowerment in Conflict

● Empowerment is about enabling less powerful parties to access and develop their own
power sources. It is a central concern in feminist and liberation movements.
○ Example: Grassroots activism that helps a marginalized community gain legal
representation and advocate for their rights is a form of empowerment.
 ● Empowerment strategies include education, skill-building, and organizing collective
action.

9. Current Implications (2017)

1. Power and Political Leadership: Leaders may possess potential power (authority,
resources) but fail to convert it into kinetic power. For instance, despite legal authority,
President Trump faced opposition from Congress, the courts, and public opinion, limiting
his ability to enforce certain policies.
2. Resistance to Power: Institutional checks, such as courts or grassroots movements,
can block powerful figures from enacting changes, as seen when courts struck down
Trump’s travel ban.
3. Dangers of Coercive Power: Over-reliance on coercion can backfire, creating long-term
enemies. More effective leadership often involves integrating coercion with incentives
and collaboration.
4. The Reality of Facts: The political climate in 2017 showed disputes over facts, with
discussions of “alternative facts” blurring the line between reality and perception. This
complicates the exercise of power, as facts themselves become contested.

Reading 2 - Power in Conflict and Strategies

1. Power and Conflict Emergence

● Power in Conflict: Conflict is driven by the moves and countermoves between parties,
heavily influenced by the power participants bring to bear. Power influences decisions,
positions, and the progression of conflict.
● Latent Conflict: This is the early stage where differences between parties are noticed,
but no action is taken yet. Differences can be real or perceived, but there is no
interaction based on these differences at this stage.

Example:

● In a student publication board, members may notice differences in priorities, such as

funding allocation among magazines, but no immediate actions or conflicts arise until
budgets are cut, turning latent conflict into open conflict.

2. Triggering Events in Conflict

 ● Triggering Event: A moment or action that shifts the conflict from latent to active. It
moves parties from being aware of differences to acting on them. This could be a
decision, an announcement, or even a conversation that escalates the tension.

Example:

● If a budget cut is announced for student publications, it may cause editors to fight for
their share of resources, triggering open conflict among them.

3. Conflict Interaction and Power Dynamics

● Once conflict is triggered, interaction becomes cyclical, with each move by one party
provoking a countermove from the other. This interaction reveals and tests the power of
each party.

Case Example:

● Scenario 1: A member writes a letter proposing to eliminate a magazine. If the letter is

simply sent to a faculty advisor and met with passive acceptance, the conflict remains
controlled.
● Scenario 2: The letter is published in a school newspaper, leading to open discussion,
potential opposition, and demands for special meetings. This creates a stronger, more
dynamic conflict due to the public nature of the move.

4. A Relational View of Power

● Power as Relational: Power isn't just a possession; it's relational, meaning that it
depends on others acknowledging or endorsing it. Power is effective because it carries
weight in relationships.
● Endorsement: Others must recognize the power resource for it to be effective. For
instance, a manager’s power to fire an employee only works if the employee values their
job and believes the manager will follow through.

Example:

● A child's temper tantrum has power over parents only if the parents are willing to
appease the child.

5. Sources of Power
Power can come from a variety of resources, including:

1. Skills and Knowledge: Expertise in a certain area can give someone power, such as a
professor who holds considerable intellectual authority.
2. Formal Authority: A manager or leader may have power through their position, as they
control resources or decision-making.
3. Social Status: Being part of a respected social category (e.g., a doctor, CEO) can
confer power simply through societal expectations.
4. Material Resources: Control over tangible assets like money, property, or tools of
influence.

Example:

● A manager may rely on their formal authority to influence project decisions, but if their
team does not endorse their leadership, this power can be undermined.

6. Mystique and Social Categorization

● Mystique of Power: Power often has a mystique attached to it, making it seem
mysterious or unattainable to others. This aura can perpetuate someone’s influence
even when their actions are questionable.
● Social Categorization: People's power is also shaped by societal roles. Higher-status
individuals (e.g., executives) are often assumed to be more powerful and capable,
whereas lower-status individuals may not be taken seriously even if they have the same
resources.

Example:

● The Eccentric Professor: Harold, a professor known for his unusual behavior, is seen
as powerful due to his academic background and mystique, despite his eccentricities.

7. The Role of Interaction in Power Endorsement

● Interaction: Power is enacted through interaction, where parties either reinforce or

challenge each other’s moves. For instance, if a professor establishes strict classroom
rules and students follow without question, they are endorsing the professor's authority.

Example:

● If students in Harold’s class abide by his eccentric rules (such as no hats or shorts), they
reinforce his power. However, if students start defying these rules, it undermines his
authority.
8. Power and Organizational Conflict

● In organizational settings, power dynamics play a critical role in decision-making and

conflict. Managers often use their formal authority to direct teams, but this can backfire if
employees do not endorse the manager’s power or feel manipulated.

Example:

● Creativity Development Committee: Tom, a lab manager, attempted to impose his

preferred program on project directors despite their reservations. His move to use formal
authority led to resentment and defiance from the directors, ultimately weakening his
power.

9. Power Tactics and Modes

● Direct Use of Power: Tactics that compel others to act regardless of their wishes. This
could include using force, political resources, or direct commands.
○ Example: A manager who directly orders a team to follow a specific procedure.
● Indirect Use of Power: Shaping interactions without overtly using power, such as
through persuasion or subtle influence.
○ Example: A leader who subtly manipulates the discussion to lead others to their
desired outcome without explicitly using authority.
● Hidden Use of Power: Suppressing issues or controlling decisions before conflict can
arise.
○ Example: A company executive who makes decisions behind the scenes,
ensuring certain issues never come to light.

5.4.1 Threats and Promises - Detailed Notes

● Definition of Threats and Promises:

○ A threat involves a person's intention to act detrimentally towards another's
interests if that person does not comply with a request or condition.
○ A promise involves a person's intention to act beneficially toward another if that
person complies with a request or condition.
○ These tactics are seen as two sides of the same coin, where threats represent a
negative outcome and promises a positive one (Kelley, 1965; Deutsch, 1973;
Bowers, 1974).
● Link to Power:
○ Threats and promises directly reflect the use of power to influence behavior and
interaction.
 ○ They explicitly connect resources (rewards and punishments) to influence,
offering a clear view of how power operates in conflict situations.
○ These tactics were among the earliest studied in conflict resolution and remain
widely researched (Tedeschi, 1970; Bowers, 1974; Gibbons, Bradac, & Busch,
1992).
● Effectiveness of Threats and Promises:
○ Success depends on the person’s control over valued resources. For example,
a manager cannot threaten dismissal if they have no authority to fire an
employee, nor can they promise a raise without the ability to deliver.
○ Perception of control is often more important than actual control. If the person
being influenced believes the influencer can deliver on threats or promises, they
are more likely to comply.
○ The effectiveness also depends on the individual's skill in convincing others they
can carry out the threat or promise.
● Consequences of Not Carrying Out Threats or Promises:
○ Unfulfilled threats can damage the influencer's credibility and reduce their
power, as others might doubt their resources or willingness to act in the future.
○ Unfulfilled promises can undermine authority and cause a loss of respect,
leading others to question the person's ability to deliver.
○ This risk is particularly high with intangible resources like authority or respect.
For example, if a manager fails to secure a raise for employees, they may lose
their influence over future interactions.
● Impact of Carrying Out Threats or Promises:
○ Carrying out threats can lead to resentment and undermine the influencer's
relationships and long-term authority. Over time, it may erode the very power
base they relied on.
○ Fulfilling promises, however, enhances credibility, likeability, and
trustworthiness. When people see promises being fulfilled, they are more likely to
endorse the power of the person in the future.
○ Thromises (a combination of threats and promises) are often used to balance
both tactics. For instance, a manager might say, “We can’t take Friday off unless
we finish this report today,” blending the language of reward with the suggestion
of a penalty.
● Key Factors in Successful Use of Threats and Promises:
○ Credibility is crucial. The influencer must be seen as capable and willing to
follow through on their threats or promises.
○ Consistency in carrying out threats or promises is necessary to maintain power
and influence over time.
○ Effective use of threats and promises should avoid overuse or misuse, as failed
attempts can diminish one's standing and relational power.

Topic 1 defining terms

Distinguishing Conflict from Bullying:

 ● Conflict Definition (#2):
○ Conflict is described as a struggle over values and claims to scarce status,
power, and resources.
○ In conflict, the aims of opponents are to neutralize, injure, or eliminate rivals to
gain control of these resources.
● Bullying Definition:
○ Bullying is conscious, willful, and deliberate behavior aimed to harm or induce
fear.
○ Its purpose is to create terror in the target, with terror being the primary goal,
rather than the acquisition of resources or power.
● Key Distinction:
○ Conflict: The struggle focuses on securing resources or power.
○ Bullying: The primary goal is terror and fear, not resource gain. The harm
inflicted is not tied to a struggle over something scarce, but rather the harm itself
is the goal.

Conflict Definition (#3) and Its Impact on the Understanding of Bullying:

● Conflict Definition (#3):

○ Conflict is a situation where multiple realities are recognized, and participants
must negotiate to create a common meaning.
● Impact on the View of Bullying and Conflict:
○ This definition suggests that conflict involves recognizing different
perspectives and negotiating outcomes.
○ It raises the question: can bullying be viewed through this lens of multiple
realities, considering the perspectives of the bully, the bullied, and the
bystander?
○ It opens the possibility that bullying may not be entirely separate from conflict but
might be understood as involving different realities that are not aligned or
acknowledged by all parties.
○ It questions whether bullying is truly "other" or if it can be analyzed as a severe
form of conflict where the power dynamics and intentions of participants differ.

Defining Power:

● Reflection on Power:
○ Listeners are encouraged to reflect on their own definition of power before
continuing.
● Possible Definitions of Power:
○ Getting what you want despite objections: Power is the ability to achieve your
desires even when others oppose.
 ○ Capacity for change: Power is the capacity to bring about changes in situations
or relationships.
○ Influence over others' actions: Power is the ability to get someone to do
something they wouldn’t do on their own, including acting against their own
interests.
○ Voice and Choice:
■ Voice: Having a say in situations, where your input is considered.
■ Choice: Having the autonomy to make decisions and influence outcomes,
regardless of others’ preferences.

Key Takeaways:

● Conflict vs. Bullying:

○ Conflict involves a struggle for resources, whereas bullying is about inflicting
terror for its own sake.
○ The way we define conflict can shape how we view its relationship with bullying,
especially when considering different realities experienced by those involved.
● Power:
○ Power can be seen as control, influence, and the capacity to enact change. It
can manifest in the ability to affect others' actions, especially when it goes
against their self-interest. Power also entails having both a voice and choice in
decision-making processes.

Topic 2 power and control

Types of Power

1. Positional Power
○ Definition: Power that flows from one's authority or position within a particular
role or organization.
○ Characteristics:
■ Derived from a formal position or title (e.g., manager, CEO, teacher).
■ Associated with the ability to make decisions, allocate resources, or give
orders.
■ Often linked to hierarchical structures within organizations or institutions.
2. Personality Power
○ Definition: Power that flows from one's way of being in the world; personal
attributes or charisma.
○ Characteristics:
■ Based on individual traits such as confidence, communication skills,
charisma, or likability.
■ Influences others through personal appeal or interpersonal skills.
 ■ Can exist independently of formal positions or titles.
3. Identity Power
○ Definition: Power related to various aspects of who we are, including gender,
race, economic class, education level, and many others.
○ Characteristics:
■ Stemming from social identities and the societal structures that privilege
certain groups over others.
■ Includes systemic advantages or disadvantages based on identity factors.
■ Can impact one's access to resources, opportunities, and influence.
4. Group Power
○ Definition: Power related to our participation in groups.
○ Characteristics:
■ Derived from being part of a collective with shared interests or goals.
■ Includes power gained through solidarity, numbers, or collective action.
■ Examples include unions, advocacy groups, or social movements.

Transcription – Power in Popular Culture

Understanding Power in Popular Culture:

● Common Perceptions of Power:

○ Often viewed negatively, associated with control, dominance, or corruption.
○ Expressions Reflecting Negative Views:
■ "He is a control freak or a power monger."
■ "She just pulled a power move."
■ "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
■ "That was a power play."
■ "I feel that I have no power in this situation."
■ "She is just power hungry."
■ "It's just about politics and power."
■ "Power without accountability is easily corrupted."
● Negative Connotations:
○ Power is seen as dangerous or something to be wary of.
○ Those who seek power are often viewed as untrustworthy or harmful.

Exploring Nuanced Understandings of Power:

● Essential Nature of Power:

○ Despite negative views, power is essential for achieving goals.
○ It enables individuals to effect change and accomplish tasks.
● Question Raised:
○ Are there more nuanced ways to think about power beyond the negative
stereotypes?
 ○ Is there more than one kind of power?

Feminist Definitions of Power:

1. Power To:
○ Definition: The ability to accomplish goals and affect change.
○ Characteristics:
■ Ethically neutral; power that simply exists.
■ Enables individuals to complete tasks, assignments, or jobs.
■ In conflicts, it's the persuasive power used to argue one's case and
potentially convince others.
■ Reflects the concept of win-win situations, where power is used
constructively.
2. Power Over:
○ Definition: Coercive power; the ability to make others act against their interests.
○ Characteristics:
■ Often destructive and involves force or manipulation.
■ Uses threats, intimidation, or dominance (e.g., raised voice, power suits).
■ Demonstrates that one party can win over another.
■ Reflects the concept of win-lose situations, where power is used to
overpower others.
3. Power With (Empowerment):
○ Definition: Power that walks alongside others, helping them achieve their
goals.
○ Characteristics:
■ Involves partnership, collaboration, and compassion.
■ Encourages mutual support and collective action.
■ Seeks shared success and empowerment of all parties involved.

Analogy to Illustrate Power With:

● Working with Horses:

○ Ineffective Approach: Standing in front of a horse and pulling the reins to move
it forward leads to resistance; the horse pulls back.
○ Effective Approach: Standing beside the horse's head, facing the same
direction, and walking forward encourages the horse to move with you without
force.
○ Lesson: Leading alongside (power with) is more effective than pulling from the
front (power over).

Relational Understanding of Power:

● Power as a Group Property:

○ Power does not belong to individuals inherently but is derived from the group
context.
 ○ Individuals draw on power resources available within the social group or
structure.
● Access to Power Resources:
○ Different roles provide access to different power resources (e.g., CEO vs.
average worker).
○ Power is linked to respect for roles and positions granted by others.
● Endorsement of Power Moves:
○ The effectiveness of power relies on the endorsement by those over whom
power is exercised.
○ Without endorsement, power resources lose their effectiveness.

Examples Illustrating Relational Power:

1. Professor and Students:

○ A professor has power resources (setting course structure, assignments,
grading).
○ If students collectively withdraw endorsement (e.g., boycotting the class), the
professor's power diminishes.
○ Demonstrates that authority relies on the acceptance and cooperation of others.
2. Police Officer and Offender Scene:
○ An offender pointing a gun at a police officer seems to hold power.
○ The officer's calm request and the offender's hesitation show that even with a
weapon, the offender's power depends on their willingness to use it and the
psychological dynamics.
○ The offender dropping the gun illustrates the reliance on endorsement.
3. Social Movements:
○ Large-scale social changes occur when groups withdraw endorsement of
governmental power moves.
○ Collective action can shift power dynamics by refusing to accept existing power
structures.

Transcription – A Post-Modern Approach to Power

Michel Foucault's Understanding of Power:

● Power as Inherent in Social Relationships:

○ Power is not possessed by individuals but exists within the network of social
relations and structures.
○ Everyone is subject to power relations; power circulates among individuals and
groups.
● Power and Discourse:
○ Discourse: Not just conversation but the totality of language, social structures,
relationships, and ways of knowing.
 ○ Power flows through discursive structures.
○ There's a deep connection between power and knowledge.
● Power-Knowledge Relationship:
○ All knowledge is implicated in power; power is expressed through ways of
knowing.
○ Knowledge systems reinforce power relations.

Example Illustrating Foucault's Concepts:

● Government Deficits:
○ The commonly accepted "knowledge" that deficits are bad is a product of power
relations.
○ This knowledge benefits certain groups and disciplines others.
○ It discourages people from demanding more government assistance or
considering alternative economic systems.
○ Those with fewer resources may internalize this belief, acting against their own
interests.

Impact on Conflict and Mediation:

● Power Imbalances in Mediation:

○ Traditional mediation aims to balance power between parties, enabling equal
participation.
○ Foucault suggests that power relations are embedded in the very structures of
mediation.
○ Power and knowledge relations in society cannot be easily altered in the
mediation room.
● Acknowledging Power Relations:
○ It's important to recognize how participants are embedded in power relations.
○ Understanding the knowledge at work that maintains or creates these power
dynamics.
○ This awareness may be more realistic than attempting to hide or ignore existing
power structures.

Critical Questions:

● Is Change Possible?
○ Foucault's perspective may seem pessimistic regarding altering power dynamics.
○ However, acknowledging power relations can be a crucial first step toward
meaningful change.
● Transparency vs. Illusion:
○ Is it better to openly acknowledge power relations rather than pretending they
don't exist?
○ Transparency about power may lead to more honest and effective conflict
resolution.
Key Takeaways

● Multiple Forms of Power:

○ Power is multifaceted, including positional, personality, identity, and group power.
○ Understanding these types helps in recognizing how power operates in different
contexts.
● Power Dynamics in Society:
○ Popular culture often views power negatively, associating it with corruption or
abuse.
○ Feminist perspectives introduce more nuanced views, distinguishing between
coercive power and empowering forms of power.
● Relational Nature of Power:
○ Power is not merely an individual possession but is derived from social
relationships and group dynamics.
○ The effectiveness of power depends on the endorsement and acceptance by
others.
● Foucault's Post-Modern Perspective:
○ Power circulates within societal structures and is deeply intertwined with
knowledge and discourse.
○ Individuals are both subjects to and participants in power relations.
○ Understanding these dynamics is crucial in addressing conflicts and considering
the possibility of change.
● Implications for Conflict Resolution:
○ Recognizing and acknowledging existing power relations can lead to more
honest and effective mediation.
○ Attempts to balance power must consider the deep-rooted societal structures that
influence interactions.
○ Openness about power dynamics may be more productive than attempting to
create artificial equality.

Topic 3: Additional Ways of Thinking About Power

Conflict Styles and Their Relation to Power

1. Competing
○ Power Type: Power over
○ Definition: The goal is to win, often at any cost.
○ Power Resources: Positional power, authority, or dominant personality traits.
○ Characteristics:
 ■ Coercive, often draws on resources to overwhelm or dominate the
opponent.
■ Works best when the individual has significant access to power
resources, such as status or charisma.
■ Individuals using this style may make others feel small or powerless,
exemplifying coercive power.
2. Collaborating
○ Power Type: Power with
○ Definition: A cooperative approach where both parties work together to find a
mutually beneficial solution.
○ Power Resources: Active listening, empathy, and a willingness to understand
others.
○ Characteristics:
■ Seeks to find a solution that satisfies all parties.
■ Power comes from partnership and shared goals.
■ This style fosters connection, shared decision-making, and
empowerment.
3. Compromising
○ Power Type: Power to
○ Definition: The goal is to find a middle ground where both parties give up
something to reach a solution.
○ Power Resources: Negotiation, practicality, and the ability to find workable
solutions.
○ Characteristics:
■ A balanced approach that seeks a win-win by making concessions.
■ Power is drawn from the ability to facilitate agreement and move toward a
resolution.
4. Avoiding
○ Power Type: Can be seen as Power over
○ Definition: The avoider does not engage in the conflict and pushes the problem
away.
○ Power Resources: Non-engagement, avoidance tactics, denial.
○ Characteristics:
■ The person refusing to engage forces their will on the situation, effectively
maintaining control by not addressing the conflict.
■ Can be viewed as using passive power to prevent resolution.
5. Accommodating
○ Power Type: Can be interpreted as Power with or the abdication of power
○ Definition: The accommodator gives in to the other’s needs or demands.
○ Power Resources: Conceding, yielding, fostering goodwill.
○ Characteristics:
■ Can be seen as either the abandonment of power or as a strategy to build
future influence by fostering goodwill and cooperation.
 ■ Potentially a tactic to create indebtedness and later leverage for future
gains.

The Victim-Villain-Rescuer Triangle

● Definition: A common dynamic in conflicts where roles of victim, villain, and rescuer are
assumed and shift over time.
○ Victim: Feels powerless, often sees themselves as being wronged or oppressed.
○ Villain: The perceived perpetrator of harm, often framed as the antagonist.
○ Rescuer: The one who steps in to save or defend the victim.
● Example: Sue’s Case:
○ Background: Sue, previously a victim of gender discrimination, was hired to
address similar issues in her workplace.
○ Sue’s Role as Rescuer: She perceived herself as saving others from gender
discrimination but became aggressive in her approach.
○ Shift in Roles: Her aggressive methods led others to see her as the villain, and
eventually, her contract was not renewed, placing her back in the victim role.
○ Power Dynamics:
■ Sue: Used her passion and experience as power resources but applied
them as power over others, leading to resentment.
■ Perceived Villains: Had positional power but were vulnerable to Sue’s
attacks.
■ Victims: Lacked power and were further disempowered by Sue, who
spoke on their behalf without empowering them.
● Alternative Approach: If Sue had used power with rather than power over, she might
have engaged with the victims more collaboratively, empowering them and using her
personal power more constructively.

The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander Triangle

● Differences from the Victim-Villain-Rescuer Triangle:

○ In the bullying scenario, no one steps in as the rescuer.
○ The dynamic is sustained by the bully, the bullied, and bystanders who either
witness or ignore the behavior.
1. The Bully:
○ Power Source: Personality power, sometimes positional power, and the backing
of "henchmen."
○ Characteristics:
■ Enjoys intimidating others and derives satisfaction from coercive behavior.
■ Sometimes legitimized by the organization or supported by weaker
groups.
 ■ Can exploit loose organizational systems that allow unchecked behavior.
2. The Bullied:
○ Power Source: Typically lacks power, especially if they occupy lower positions in
the hierarchy.
○ Characteristics:
■ Victims of bullying often lack the capacity to fight back and are further
disempowered by systemic factors.
■ Organizational structures that avoid conflict can perpetuate their
victimization.
3. The Bystander:
○ Power Source: Holds the potential power to intervene but often chooses not to.
○ Reasons for Non-Intervention:
■ Fear of becoming the next target.
■ Uncertainty about what to do.
■ A belief that it’s not their problem or the target deserved it.
○ Potential for Change: Bystanders can make a significant difference by refusing
to support the bully and calling out inappropriate behavior.
● Assertive Response:
○ This approach calls for setting boundaries and expectations for respectful
behavior.
○ Steps include addressing the bully directly, holding them accountable, and
fostering an environment where bullying is not tolerated.

Post-Modern Approach to Power and Conflict

● Michel Foucault's Perspective on Power:

○ Power is not a possession but circulates within social relationships and
structures.
○ Power is intertwined with discourse, which includes language, societal norms,
and ways of knowing.
○ Power-Knowledge Nexus: Knowledge is always implicated in power; no
knowledge exists without some connection to power dynamics.
● Example of Power-Knowledge:
○ In current discourse, we “know” that government deficits are bad, but this
knowledge serves to maintain power structures that benefit certain groups.
○ This creates discipline and inequality, as those with fewer resources are
discouraged from demanding more or challenging the system.
● Impact on Mediation:
○ Power dynamics in mediation cannot be easily balanced because mediation itself
is embedded in societal power relations.
○ Key Question: Is it better to acknowledge these power relations explicitly, or
pretend that equal footing is possible when it is not?
Key Takeaways on Power and Conflict

1. Conflict Styles and Power:

○ Different conflict styles tap into different forms of power, from coercive "power
over" to collaborative "power with."
○ Recognizing the power dynamics inherent in each style helps in understanding
how conflicts unfold and are resolved.
2. Victim-Villain-Rescuer Triangle:
○ Individuals can move between roles of victim, villain, and rescuer in conflict
situations.
○ Understanding the power resources and dynamics in these roles is key to
avoiding harmful cycles of conflict.
3. Bullying Dynamics:
○ The bully, the bullied, and bystanders each play a role in sustaining or addressing
bullying behavior.
○ Bystanders, in particular, have the potential to make a significant impact by
calling out bullying and setting expectations for behavior.
4. Power as Relational:
○ Power is not something individuals hold; it exists in the relationships between
people and is influenced by societal structures.
○ Understanding how power flows through discourse and relationships is essential
to addressing conflict and creating more equitable dynamics.
5. Foucault’s Influence:
○ Foucault’s theory that power and knowledge are inseparable adds complexity to
how we think about power in conflicts.
○ Acknowledging the embedded power relations in mediation and conflict
resolution may lead to more realistic and effective approaches.

wo people are attending a workshop in Canada. There are a total of 20

participants in the workshop. One is a 45 year old Zulu (that means he is
Black) man from South Africa. His name is Thabo. South Africa has a
long history of extreme discrimination against the majority Black
population by its white minority population. The laws that shaped this
discrimination were abloshed after apartheid ended in 1994, but attitudes
have not changed significantly. He is loud, large, and extraverted. Thabo
is from a culture that values communication through indirectness,
metaphor and stories, and resolves conflict through third parties. The
second person is a 30 year old white Canadian woman named Karen.
She is quiet, average in size, and introverted. She is from a culture that
values communication through direct discussion of ideas and issues in
conflict. Thabo is the only Black person in the workshop. All the other
participants are white, with a mix of genders. Thabo and Karen have a
profound disagreement over one of the topics covered in the workshop.

● What power resources does each person have access to?

● Analyze how those power resources might be used.
● Analyze this situation using the categories of power to, power over,
power with.
● Analyze this situation using the categories of Michel Foucault's
understanding of power.

1. Power Resources

● Thabo (45-year-old Zulu man from South Africa)

○ Cultural Experience: Skilled in storytelling and indirect communication, Thabo
can use this to influence others emotionally.
○ Personality: His loud, extraverted nature commands attention.
○ Moral Authority: Thabo’s background with systemic discrimination gives him
credibility in discussions on inequality.
○ Minority Status: Being the only Black person can be both isolating and a source
of unique perspective.
● Karen (30-year-old white Canadian woman)
○ Cultural Background: She values direct communication, which aligns with the
norms of the group.
○ Personality: Quiet and introverted, she can use thoughtfulness to deliver
measured arguments.
○ Social Alignment: Being part of the racial majority gives her cultural familiarity
within the group.

2. How Power Resources Might Be Used

● Thabo: He can use his extraversion to dominate the conversation and storytelling to
persuade, but his indirect style may clash with the group's expectations.
 ● Karen: Her direct communication and alignment with the majority may give her an edge,
making her arguments more acceptable to the group.

3. Feminist Power Analysis (Power to, Power over, Power with)

● Power to:
○ Thabo: Can use his cultural experience to bring new perspectives.
○ Karen: Uses direct communication to influence others clearly.
● Power over:
○ Thabo: His physical presence and assertiveness could dominate the space.
○ Karen: Her alignment with group norms can give her an advantage in swaying
the group.
● Power with:
○ Thabo: Could build alliances by collaborating through storytelling.
○ Karen: Encourages open discussion by facilitating dialogue.

4. Foucault's Power Analysis

● Relational Power: Both Thabo and Karen’s power depends on the group’s response to
their communication styles. Thabo's indirect storytelling may challenge the group's
norms, while Karen's directness fits within them.
● Discourse and Power: Thabo challenges dominant communication norms, while Karen
aligns with them, giving her potential advantage.
● Endorsement of Power: The group’s endorsement will determine whose power
prevails. If they value Karen’s directness, she holds more power; if they appreciate
Thabo’s unique perspective, his power could increase.

Conclusion

Thabo’s power comes from his cultural background and moral authority, while Karen’s power is
rooted in her alignment with the group’s norms. The group’s acceptance of their respective
power styles will ultimately determine how the conflict plays out.

Module 11

Transcription – Betty’s Story

Welcome to this lecture on a concept for conflict analysis and conflict conversations
called positions and interests.
But before we get into that, I would like to just tell you a story and ask you what you
would do.
So this is a story that’s not from my own experience but that a friend of mine told me
about and this friend of mine runs a homeless shelter. And one the people in this
homeless shelter is a woman and she’s a woman who works there, rather. And one day,
this woman who was working in this homeless shelter was talking with a man who was
one of the residents of the shelter and he grabbed her arm and he just started
swooshing really, really, really hard.
Imagine you’re the employee of this shelter, what would you do?
The man is taking the arm. He is very strong. He’s a big, burly man and he is squishing
your arm harder and harder and harder. What would you do?
So, one option is to fight back and see if you can overpower him. One option is to ask
him to stop – get somebody to support you, right, make noise, and let others come. Ask
him why, “why are you doing that?” It’s a great option. In fact, drawing people into
conversation and distracting them even from what they’re doing is a great conflict
de-escalation technique.
What this woman did was something different. Her response was so different. I find it a
fascinating story.
What she said to the guy was, “My, you’re strong.” And he let go. Why did her response
generate the reaction she was looking for? When somebody is coming with strength
and with violence, shall we say, they are often expecting the same reaction back. When
we don’t give that reaction back, but give something back, you know if we just whimper
that can actually escalate the violence. But some kind of a strong reaction back that is
not violent can actually de-escalate.
Why is he doing this to her? On some level, his intention behind it, which is a little bit
unclear, and maybe not so well communicated, but his intention is to look for some kind
of acknowledgement.
And so what we see here is this response and the intent action response. The intent
action effect response is when you do this, when you squish my arm that really hurts
me, that’s the intent action effect response which can really work, but it’s not necessarily
going to work in this context. Part of what you might have heard me say in class before
is when it comes to conflict resolution, there are a hundred doors to open and part of the
wisdom is to figure out which door to open and when. And in this case, she did not open
the intent action effect door, she opened the what we refer to as the positions and
interests door and in one fell swoop, figured out what his underlying need was,
responded to the underlying need and the situation was over.
His underlying need was what? Acknowledgment.
Somebody in his shoes who’s disenfranchised from society will have, very possibly, a
profound need for acknowledgment. And when she gives him that, the situation
de-escalates. Imagine if we could do that more often. When we’re confronted with a
tough situation to figure out what that person needs, respond accordingly and get a
different reaction than what we might fear.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Transcription – Digging deeper into positions and interests

The iceberg:
As we know, when we look at an iceberg from above the water surface, we are seeing
only 10% of the total size of the iceberg. If we were to don scuba gear and went below
the waterline, we would see the other 90% of the ice. Furthermore, it is not uncommon
to see what looks like two icebergs from above the waterline, but if we went below, we
would see that in fact they are connected. We are simply seeing two peaks of a single
iceberg
Positions and interests are similar. What we most often see in conversation with others
is the tip of the iceberg—the position: Yes, parents should sometimes spank their
children. No, parents should never spank their children.
Underneath the waterline are the myriad stories, experiences, values, principles,
relationships that have shaped these positions. If we remain focused on the positions,
we will never know the full depth of what the other person thinks. In fact, we will never
know the full depth of what we think. It is not uncommon for us to have positions, but to
have little sense of all that contributes to those positions.
Interests are a powerful tool for exploring issue based conflict, whereas the
intent/action/effect model is useful for exploring an incident based conflict.
Let’s explore interests a bit more:
Interests can be divided into two groups- wants and needs.
Wants can be further divided into interests related to substance, and interests related to
process. These are often spoken of as tangible interests. When we look at needs, we
are thinking about issues that operate at the level of our basic psychological makeup.
These are often spoken of as intangible interests.
Tangible interests related to substance are often easier to address than those related to
process as those often connect to intangible interests, our psychological needs
A story that illustrates this:
A colleague of mine tells the story of a conflict in a workplace over the colour of the
carpet. The management wanted the carpet to be blue, the employees said they wanted
the carpet to be a multi coloured and flecked. At first blush, this seems a rather silly
conflict.
So what lies behind this conflict?
First, there are several substance interests—the company wanted blue because that
was the main colour in the corporate logo, and branding was important. The staff had
concerns like cleaning and psychological impact of the colour. More important were
process interests. Management had a habit of asking staff for their viewpoint on various
issues in order to be seen as consulting, and then ignoring the input from staff in their
decisions. The same had happened here—management had asked what colour staff
wanted and then said they would do blue, a colour that no staff had expressed interest
in.
So, the staff had a major process interest—if you consult, take our comments into
account in decision making. But note that this process interest tied to a psychological
interest—acknowledgement. You can see from this example, that what appeared to be a
simple argument over colour was something much deeper. If the mediation had
remained focused on the positions—blue, flecked, blue, flecked—they might have found
a “compromise” colour, but they never would have gotten to the real issue, the
underlying process and psychological interests.
Psychological interests fall into five categories. These interests can often be seen most
clearly when we look at young children, but they also get expressed in adult conflicts:

Self-determination
“I can do it myself.”
Anyone who has hung around two year old children has heard a child assert their ability
to do something themselves. In the workplace, this can show up in the request that a
manager quit micro-managing. Trust me to do my job. Don’t keep telling me how to do
what I already know how to do.

Belonging
“They are not letting me play.”
Again, a common experience in a classroom. One child is excluded from the group. At
higher grades, this can become extremely nasty as the excluding behaviour takes on
the pattern of bullying, and the cry for inclusion, for belonging in the face of exclusion
can turn to suicide. In the workplace, the same thing happens. I will never forget my first
day on a summer factory job where I came into the lunch room and found that everyone
was sitting at the same table they had always sat at and there was no place for me. I
almost quit on the spot.
Recognition- this can often be expressed as a need for fairness.
“His piece is bigger than mine.” Or “You did a good job.”
With children, this combination of fairness and being recognized for what they have
done is central to growth and development. In the workplace and in other groups, being
valued for a contribution is crucial to self-esteem and to a sense of being valued by
others.

Security
“Mommy, hold me?” Or “Are you safe to be around?
A sense of safety and security is crucial to one’s own psychological health, as well as
being central to community life. For children, that sense of security and safety is
nurtured through the care and protection of parents. When children are hurt the first
place they go is to a parent. As we grow, we don’t depend so much on parents for this,
though the safety or lack of safety in our families of origin so profoundly shape us that
that early childhood experience to some extent determines whether we see the world as
safe or dangerous.
Nevertheless, this question of safety continues to govern our lives: when we go to work,
does it feel like a safe place where we can relax, or do we enter the workplace dreading
what may happen later? Do our friends, our partners, our families function as groups
within which we feel surrounded by people who are safe to be with and who are willing
to step in to protect us when we sense a lack of safety?

Success in some part of one’s life

(“I can do it!”) This is a bit different than self-determination. There the statement was, “I
can do it myself,” with the emphasis on “myself.” I don’t need help. Here the statement
is “I can do it.” The emphasis is on “do.”
Success is focused on the sense of accomplishment, on the ability to start something
and complete it. More, it is connected to the way that the thing that I do is making a
positive contribution to the world around me. For children, this is a crucial
developmental step as they successfully learn new skills and successfully contribute to
their families. This is the reason that you often see young children eager to help a
parent with household chores—they are learning new skills and have a sense of
contributing to the family.
It is similar in the workplace and in our communities. The ability to successfully
complete new tasks and to have a sense of being part of a team, contributing to the
achievements of the workplace are central to job satisfaction. People who don’t have
the opportunity to learn and who don’t see themselves contributing to something larger
than themselves are less likely to be happy in their workplace.
If people’s psychological needs or interests are not met, we can expect the rise of a
conflict over some issue of substance.
To take the example of the office carpet- the fact that people’s needs for recognition
were not being met did not lead to a conversation about interests and the need for
management to give recognition. Rather, a conflict over something concrete arose. The
carpet colour became a stand in for the recognition issue. It may be that people, at least
at the start, would not have been able to articulate the underlying interest.
Not all conflicts have these deeper psychological interests at play. In some cases, the
issue of substance is all there is. To return to the example I used in the definitions
module, suppose my wife and I continually have the conflict over whether to go for
Indian or Thai food every week, and every week the same person gets their way.
Initially, that is simply a conflict over substance, but eventually that fact of the recurring,
badly solved conflict will create a psychological need.
It important to remember that in almost every conflict, some interests will be mutual.
Some interests will be different, but compatible, and some interests will be simply
incompatible with each other.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Transcription – How to move from positions to interests

How do we move from positions to interests?
There are several skills or practices, or attitudes that make this possible:
The starting place is what can be called walking with two feet—alternating
acknowledgment and inquiry.
First, acknowledgement: When having difficult conversations, most people have a
tendency to focus on inquiry. But the reality is that most people are not capable of
responding well to inquiry, especially regarding deeply held needs, unless they have a
sense that the person asking cares about them, and understands them and their
experience.
If you are in the midst of a conversation and hear yourself or the other person making a
point repeatedly, it is a safe bet that they are looking for acknowledgement. I recently
met with a person to prepare for mediation. During a one hour conversation, she must
have stated at least six times that she had done what she had done with nothing but the
needs of the organization and its people in her mind. She was looking for me to
acknowledge her good intentions and her desire for the good of the organization. Until I
was able to do that I could not expect her to respond well to my questions. Here, as
elsewhere in the conversation, statements that summarize or paraphrase what the other
person has said will get well down the road to acknowledgment.
Inquiry: the goal here is to invite the party to say more about what is important to them.
The simplest way—is to acknowledge what they have just said, and then say “tell me
more.” In general, the method is to use open ended questions, questions that invite the
person to say more.
Genuine curiosity is an important attitude to bring to the table. Because it is so easy to
operate from a place of judgment about the other, this involves a shift in attitude from
judgment to curiosity. That can be hard to do. I still have clear memory of the mediation
that died because I as mediator couldn’t step out of my judgment of one of the parties.
Offer verbal indicators and body language to indicate that you are listening. The other
party needs to have a clear sense that you are attending well to what they have to say.
Do everything in your power to let them know that.
These conversations can be a delicate dance of seeking disclosure of the other
person’s interests and disclosure of one’s own interests. In some cases, especially
where the conflict is intense, the other person may not be willing to go down their
iceberg until you go down yours.
Acknowledge, inquire, acknowledge, and inquire. And agree whenever possible.
Finally, be sure that you apologize for whatever there is that you can apologize for.

How to respond to what might be called ‘throw-away comments:’

You have no doubt heard them before:
“What a jerk!”
“How could he be so dumb?!”
“Will she ever learn?!”
“That gathering was just an excuse for a drinking fest!”
The question is, how do such comments relate to the positions and interests model?
Such comments are not actually on the iceberg. They come from a watchtower far away
as power moves to shut down the conversation. One can think of them as super
positions.
The response to these is to look for specifics. Such super positions rely on the
generalities inherent in them, “They are such jerks.” Well, who are they? And what does
a jerk do?
The simple move of asking the person to say more is incredibly powerful as the person
needs to back down or get specific. By pursuing ever more information, the person
responding has to get more and more specific if they are to stay in the conversation.
And as they get specific, they reveal more and more of their actual positions. Once we
know their positions, we can then move toward their interests.

What if there is no common ground?

While the absence of common ground makes it extremely hard to move toward an
interest focused conversation, it is not fatal to progress. First, moving down both
icebergs does get people closer to each other. It builds understanding and while such
understanding does not get us all the way to resolution, understanding can begin to shift
attitudes. Greater understanding can move us away from the attribution error and
enable us to see the other with compassion. It may be that with time and this new
perspective something more can happen later. With this shift to greater understanding,
we begin to have different experiences of each other. That too, can offer the possibility
of future change.
If this is the case on the interpersonal level it is also the case on the international level.
But there the work is more difficult as there are more people involved with
corresponding wider ranges in viewpoints. And yet, with good leadership, it is possible
for groups also to go down the iceberg. Might it even be possible in such difficult
circumstances as the conflicts in Israel/Palestine?
Even that conflict can be analyzed through the positions and interests model. There are
tangible interests such as the need for agricultural land and water, but there are also
deep intangible interests, self-determination and security being the most obvious. Even
in the absence of common ground, might mutual acknowledgement of these interests
open a door for deeper understanding?

I also want to comment on the demise of what could be called the

culture of discussion
There is a story from the 1970s. Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister and leader of the
Liberal Party and Joe Clark was leader of the Conservative party. Trudeau was in a
restaurant with his eldest son Justin (who is the current leader of the Liberal party).
Clark was also in the restaurant.
Justin apparently made a disparaging comment about Clark. Pierre Trudeau’s response
was that, “No, Clark was an honourable man with whom I disagree, and it is important
we disagree in service of the public good not because we dislike each other.”
There was a similar moment leading up to the 2008 presidential election in the United
States. In a town hall meeting put on by the Republican candidate, John McCain, a
woman made a very negative comment about Barack Obama, the Democratic
candidate, essentially suggesting that Obama was evil. McCain took the microphone
and said, “No ma’am, Mr. Obama is a good man with whom I happen to disagree.” As I
recall, the response to that was not especially polite.
This sense that people, and especially leaders, disagree in the service of the common
good is a disappearing attitude. That attitude allows people to go down the icebergs. It
allows for understanding. It allows for passionate but respectful debate.
In an era of echo chamber news where we only listen to news sources with which we
agree, and friendship circles where we all agree with each other, this art of
disagreement while recognizing that the other has the same commitment to the
common good is disappearing.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Transcription – The Cantor and the Klansman

A story that I think brings together much of what we have been talking about. As you
listen to the story, think about what you are hearing about interests and the ways that
the Weissers went down the iceberg.
In 1991, Michael Weisser was living in Lincoln, Nebraska with his wife at the time, Julie
Michael, and three of their five children. He was then the cantor and spiritual leader of
the South Street Temple, the oldest Jewish congregation in Lincoln. One Sunday
morning, a few days after they had moved into their new house, the phone rang.
The man on the other end of the line called Rabbi Weisser “Jew boy” and told him he
would be sorry he had moved in. Two days later, a thick package of anti-black,
anti-Semitic pamphlets arrived in the mail, including an unsigned card that read, “The
KKK is watching you, scum.”
The messages, it turned out, were from Larry Trapp, the Grand Dragon of the White
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Nebraska, who kept loaded weapons, pro-Hitler material
and his Klan robe in his cramped Lincoln apartment. Then 42 years old, Mr. Trapp was
nearly blind and used a wheelchair to get around; both of his legs had been amputated
because of diabetes.
In a 1992 interview with Time magazine, Mr. Trapp said he had wanted to scare Rabbi
Weisser into moving out of Lincoln. “As the state leader, the Grand Dragon, I did more
than my share of work because I wanted to build up the state of Nebraska into a state
as hateful as North Carolina and Florida,” he said. “I spent a lot of money and went out
of my way to instill fear.”
Rabbi Weisser, who suspected the person threatening him was Mr. Trapp, got his
telephone number and started leaving messages on the answering machine. “I would
say things like: ‘Larry, there’s a lot of love out there. You’re not getting any of it. Don’t
you want some?’ And then hang up.”
“And, ‘Larry, why do you love the Nazis so much? They’d have killed you first because
you’re disabled.’ And then hang up. I did it once a week.”
One day, Mr. Trapp answered. Ms. Michael, the rabbi’s wife, had told him to say
something nice if he ever got Mr. Trapp on the line, and he followed her advice. “I said: ‘I
heard you’re disabled. I thought you might need a ride to the grocery,’” Rabbi Weisser
said.
Then, one night, Rabbi Weisser’s phone rang again. It was Mr. Trapp. “He said, I’ll
never forget it, it was like a chilling moment, in a good way — he said, ‘I want to get out
of what I’m doing and I don’t know how,’ ” Rabbi Weisser said.
Rabbi Weisser and Ms. Michael drove to Mr. Trapp’s apartment that night. The three
talked for hours, and a close friendship formed. The couple’s home became a kind of
hospice for Mr. Trapp, who moved into one of their bedrooms as his health worsened,
and Ms. Michael became Mr. Trapp’s caretaker and confidante.
Mr. Trapp eventually renounced the Klan, apologized to many of those he had
threatened and converted to Judaism in Rabbi Weisser’s synagogue.
The relationship later inspired a 1995 book by Kathryn Watterson, Not by the Sword:
How the Love of a Cantor and His Family Transformed a Klansman.
Mr. Trapp, the former Klan leader, died in Rabbi Weisser’s Lincoln home in September
1992, less than a year after they met. The rabbi spoke at his funeral.
“People were taken by the idea that an act of kindness can make a change,” Rabbi
Weisser said. “Need a ride to the grocery?”

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

MODULE 12
 Interests, Rights,
Power and Needs
Frames
By
Michelle Maiese

September 2004

Approaches to Dispute Resolution

Mari Fitzduff talks about ways to persuade parties that peace is in their best
interest.

A frame is essentially a lens through which individuals perceive, interpret, and respond
to a particular situation. Process or conflict-management frames are the assumptions
people make about the right or best way to approach a dispute, whether through
negotiation, arbitration, protest, or military action. One factor that significantly influences
process frames is whether parties approach their dispute in terms of interests, needs,
rights, or power. These frames indicate various ways to resolve a dispute: reconciling
the interests or needs of the parties, assessing who is right, or determining who is more
powerful.

Interests are the needs, desires, concerns, and fears that underlie people's positions. [1]

Human needs, on the other hand, are the physical and non-physical elements needed
for human survival, growth and development. These needs include individual and
collective security, identity, recognition, belongingness, personal fulfillment, and the
capacity for self-determination.

Rights are independent standards of fairness or legitimacy that are either socially
recognized or formally established in law or contract. Such standards include reciprocity,
precedent, equality, and seniority.

Finally, power can be understood as the ability to coerce someone into doing something
he would not otherwise do. Exercising power is typically a matter of imposing costs on
the other side or threatening to do so, whether through acts of aggression or withholding
the benefits that derive from a relationship. [2]

Reconciling interests involves discovering parties' deep-seated concerns, devising

creative solutions, and making trade-offs and concessions in cases where their interests
are opposed. Insofar as they frame the problem in terms of interests, parties are likely to
see their dispute as a mutual problem that they must work together to solve. Some
common procedures for reconciling interests are negotiation and mediation.

Not all negotiations or mediations focus on reconciling interests. Some negotiations

focus on determining who is right, such as when lawyers argue about whose case has
greater merit. Others focus on who is more powerful, such as when parties exchange
threats or counter-threats. Often, negotiations involve a mix of all three approaches.
There are attempts to satisfy interests, some discussion of rights, and some references
to relative power.
The nature of the process used to resolve a dispute depends, to a large extent, on the
way in which the conflict is framed. For example, because reaching agreement based
on rights is often difficult, parties typically turn to a third party to decide who is right. One
very common rights-based procedure is adjudication. Disputants present arguments
and evidence to a third party who hands down a binding decision. Public adjudication is
provided by courts and administrative agencies, while private adjudication is provided
by arbitrators or private judges.

In addition, there are power-based negotiations, which involve an exchange of threats,

and power contests, in which parties take actions to see who will prevail.

The dispute resolution procedures associated with the different ways of framing conflict
all involve transaction costs and possible benefits. Such costs include the time, money,
and emotional energy devoted to the dispute as well as the opportunities that are lost.
[3] Benefits include the parties' mutual satisfaction with the result, the positive long-term
effects on the parties' relationship, and the production of lasting solutions. In Getting
Disputes Resolved, William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg contend that
reconciling interests typically costs less and yields better results than determining who
is right or more powerful. This is because a focus on interests can help to uncover
hidden problems and resolve the issues underlying the dispute more effectively than
can the other two approaches. It can also help parties to identify the issues that are of
most concern to each side. By trading off issues of lesser concern for those of great
concern, both parties can gain from the resolution of the dispute. [4]

In contrast, focusing on who is right or more powerful usually imposes higher costs on
one or both parties. Because there are different rights at stake in a particular case,
reaching agreement can often be difficult, especially where the outcome will determine
who gets what. Also, when the emphasis is on winning and losing, relationships are
likely to become more adversarial. Opponents who frame their conflict in terms of rights
or power typically interact in a legalistic, accusatory atmosphere where it is difficult for
them to really listen to those from the other side and gain an understanding of their
perspective. Parties express their grievances, proclaim their rights, and use whatever
power they have to defend their positions. Such interactions rarely involve collaboration
and tend to reinforce already rigid positions and negative perceptions of the other side.
[5]
Although both rights and power approaches can strain the relationship, focusing on
standards of fairness is typically less costly than getting caught up in threats and
counter-threats. [6] A power contest typically costs more in resources used and
opportunities lost. For example, strikes, hostile corporate takeovers, and violence cost
more than arbitration or litigation. Because destroying the opposition may become the
objective of a power contest, determining who is more powerful is typically most costly
and least effective. Thus, the goal of dispute systems design is to create a system in
which most disputes are resolved by reconciling interests; if that is impossible, turning to
rights, and only using power contests as a very last resort. [7]

There are cases when determining rights or power is necessary. For example, a party
may be unwilling to negotiate if they think they can win outright through a rights-based
adjudication or a power contest. There are also times when perceptions about who is
right or who is more powerful are so different that the parties cannot establish a range
within which to negotiate. A rights procedure may then be needed to clarify the
boundary within which a resolution may be sought. Finally, there are cases where
resolving a question of public importance is possible only through a rights contest (a
trial) or a power contest (e.g., a strike or legislative battle). [8] For example, Brown v.
Board of Education was needed to authoritatively resolve the issue of school
segregation in the United States.

Thus, focusing on rights or power can sometimes accomplish what interest-based

procedures cannot. The problem is that rights and power procedures are often used
where they are not necessary. Rights and power should be a last resort rather than a
first resort. An effective dispute resolution system might be viewed a pyramid: most
disputes are resolved through reconciling interests, some through determining who is
right, and the fewest through determining who is more powerful. [9] [Insert pyramid
diagram here- taken from p. 19 in Getting Disputes Resolved]

Interests v. Needs
 Silke Hansen recommends that mediators focus on parties' needs to come up with
the widest range of possible solutions.

While some conflict theorists blend the concepts of interests and needs together, human
needs theorists such as John Burton and Herbert Kelman distinguish between the two.
They maintain that while interests are tangible things, such as land, money, or jobs that
can be traded and compromised, needs are intangible things, such as identity, security,
and recognition, that are not for trading. Conflicts between ethnic groups, for example,
are almost always needs-based conflicts in which one group feels that its identity,
security, or the recognition of the value of its culture is being denied. One common
framing problem is the assumption that a conflict is caused by a conflict of interests,
when it is really a conflict of fundamental needs (or a conflict of interests and needs
taken together). In many cases, this occurs because issues surrounding needs are
hidden underneath the more visible conflict over interests. Where human needs are at
stake, reconciling interests will not make the conflict go away.

This is particularly apparent, perhaps, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians

feel they are being denied their legitimate national identity, while the Israelis feel a need
to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state because they see such a state as a threat
to Israeli security. However, much of the effort to resolve that conflict has been based on
compromises over tangible things such as land. Such efforts do little to address parties'
underlying needs for identity, security and recognition.

The goal of many dispute resolution approaches, such as mediation, negotiation, or

arbitration, is the settlement of conflict. However, those who frame a conflict in terms of
human needs recognize that there are certain issues that are nonnegotiable. Unlike
interests, needs cannot be bargained for, traded, or suppressed. When social conflicts
are caused by the denial of parties' essential needs, needs theorists argue that the
victims will fight indefinitely for their achievement and will not give up until that goal is
attained. If this is true, it easily explains why needs conflicts tend to be so intractable.

However, unlike many interest-based conflicts, needs conflicts do not have to be

win-lose. The reasons they seem to be is that they are often confused with interest
conflicts. Yet unlike land or water or money, which are often in short supply, needs do
not run out. The provision of security to one group does not deny security to another.
Rather, needs tend to be mutually reinforcing. If one group stops threatening the other,
the first will, most likely, stop threatening them.

In order to resolve conflicts rooted in human needs, parties need to turn away from
traditional negotiation models. Indeed, human needs theorists point out that if
agreements focus solely on material interests and ignore the underlying needs of
adversaries, they may not be stable in the long run. [10] If fundamental needs remain
unmet, violent conflict is likely to resurface, even if it is no longer manifest.

For parties who approach their conflict in terms of human needs, problem solving
workshops often prove extremely useful. In these workshops, scholars help disputants
to jointly analyze the fundamental sources of conflict, focusing on unmet human needs
such as identity and security. Workshops help to create a setting in which adversaries
can interact in more productive ways. Rather than reaching a settlement based on
interests, the two central objectives of problem solving workshops are the analysis of
conflict and its ultimate resolution. From these workshops emerge new ideas to help
participants restructure their societies and ensure that all parties' fundamental needs
are met.

References:

[1] William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved:
Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1988), 5.
Copyright Statement

This copy was made pursuant to the Fair Dealing Advisory

of the University of Waterloo.

The copy may only be used for the purpose of research,

private study, criticism, review,

news reporting, education, satire or parody. If the copy is

used for the purpose of review,

criticism, or news reporting, the source and the name of

the author must be mentioned. The

use of this copy for any other purpose may require the
permission of the copyright owner.

Taken from Getting Disputes Resolved;__

Designing Systems to cut theCost of,Conflict,

written by William L. Ury, Jeanne M; Brett and

Stephen B. Goldberg, published by The Program on

Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, (1993)

excerpts were pages 3 - 19 of this 201 page book.

Chapter 1

Three Approaches to
Resolving Disputes

Interests, Rights, and Power

It started with a pair of stolen boots. Miners usually leave

their work clothes in baskets that tµey hoist to the ceiling

of the bathhouse between work shifts. One night a miner

discovered that his boots were gone.• He couldn't work

without

boots. Angry, he went to the shift boss and complained:

"Goddammit, someone stole my boots! It ain't fair! Why

should I lose a shift's pay and the price of a pair of boots

because the company can't protect the property?"

"Hard luck!" the shift boss responded. "The company

isn't responsible for personal property left on company

premises.

Read the mine regulations!"

The miner grumbled to himself, "I'll show them! If I

can't work this shift, neither will anyone else!" He

convinced
a few buddies to walk out with him and, in union solidarity,

all the others followed.

The superintendent of the mine told us later that he

had replaced stolen boots for miners and 'that the shift
boss

should have done the same. "If the shift boss had said to
the

miner, 'I'll buy you a new pair and loan you some
meanwhile,'

we wouldn't have had a strike." The superintendent

believed that his way of resolving the dispute was better

than

4 Getting Disputes Resolved

the shift boss's or the miner's. Was he right and, if so,

why?

In what ways are some dispute resolution procedures

better

than others?
In this chapter, we discuss three ways to resolve a
dis�ut::

reconciling the int�rests of the parties, determining who

Is nght, and determining who is more powerful. Vie

analyze

the costs of disputing in terms of transaction costs

satisfac.

Lion

with outcome,.;, effect on the relationship, and r�currence

of disputes. We argue that, in general, reconciling interests

costs !ess_ and yiel

ds n,1ore satisfactory results than determining

who is nght, whtch m turn cos1..s less and satisfies more

than

deu:rmi�ing who is m�re powerful. The goal of dispute

sys•
terns design, therefore, 1s a system in which most
disputes are

resolved by reconciling interests.

Three Ways to Resolve Disputes

The Boots Dispute Dissected

A dispute begins when one person (or organization)

ma

kes a clai� or demand on another who rejects it.2 The

claun may anse from a perceived injury or from a need or

aspiration.3 'l,,Vhen the: mine r complained to the shift

boss

about the stolen boots, he was making a claim that the

com�

pa

n Y should take responsibility and remedy his perceived

mJury. The shift boss's rejection of the claim turned it into
a

�[Link]. To re:olve a dispute [Link] to LUrn opposed

positwns-the

claim and its rejection-into a single outcome.4

1:'he resolution of the boots dispute might have been a

negotl�ted

agreemen�, an �rbitrator's ruling, or a decision by the

mmer to drop his [Link] or by the company to gram ic

In a dispute, people have certain interests at stake.

Moreover;

certai? relevant standards or rights exist as guideposts

to�atd a fair outcome. In addition, a certain balance of

power

exists between the parties. Interests, rights, and power

then

are three

basic elements of any dispute. In resolving a dispute,

the parties may choose to focus their attention on one or

more of these basic facwrs. They may seek to (I)

recol).cile

Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes

their underlying interests, (2) determine who is right,

and/or

(3) determine who is more powerful.

When he pressed his claim that the company should

do something about his stolen boots, the miner focused on

rights-"Why should I lose a shift's pay and the price of a

pair of boots because the company can't protect the prop·

erty?" When the shift boss responded by referring to mine

regulations, he followed the miner's lead and continued to

focus on who [Link]. The miner, frustrated in his

attempt

to win what he saw as justice, provoked a

walkout-changing
the locus to power. ''I'll show them!" In other words, he

would show the company how much power he and his

fellow

coal miners had-how dependent the company was on

them

for the production of coal:

The mine superintendent thought the locus should

have been on interests. The miner had an interest in boots

and a shift's pay, and the company had an interest in the

miner working his assigned shift. Although rights were·

involved ( there was a question of fairness) and power

was

involved (the miner had the power to cause a strike), the

super·

intendent's emphasis was on each side's interests. He

would

have approached the stolen boots situation as a joint

problem

that the company could help solve.

Reconciling Interests

Interests are ~q;;,_~[Link].,[Link], fears7 the .things

one cares about or wants. [Link] unaer!ie people's

positionsthe

tangible items they say they want. A husband and wife

quarrel about whether to spend money for a new car. The

husband's underlying interest may not be the money or the

car but the desire to impress his friends; the wife's interest

may be transportation. The director of sales for an

electronics

company gets into a dispute with the director of

manufacturing

over the number of TV models to produce. The director

of sales wants to produce more models. Her interest is in

selling TV sets; more models mean more choice for

consumers

and hence increased sales. The director of manufacturing

6 Getting Disputes Resolved

wants to produce fewer models. His interest is in
decreasing

manufacturing costs; more models mean higher costs.

Reconciling such interests is not easy. It involves

probing for deep-seated concerns, devising creative

solutions,

and making trade-offs and concessions where interests

are

opposed.> The most common procedure for doing this is

nego·

[Link], the act of back-and-forth communication intended

to reach agreement. (A procedure is a pattern of

interactive

behavior directed toward resolving a dispute.) Another

interests-based

procedure is mediation, in which a third party

assists the disputants in reaching agreement.

By no means do all negotiations (or mediations) focus

on reconciling interests. Some negotiations focus on

determining
who is right, such as when two lawyers argue about

whose case has the greater merit: Other negotiations

focus on

determining who is more powerful,. such as when

quarreling

neighbors or nations exchange threats and counterthreats.

Often negotiations involve a mix of all three-some

attempts

to satisfy interests, some discussion of rights, and some

references

to relative power. Negotiations that focus primarily

on interests we call "interests-based," in contrast to

"rights·

based" and "power-based" negotiations. Another term for

interests-based negotiation is problem-solving negotiation,

so

called because it involves treating a dispute as a mutual

problem to be solved by the parties.

Before disputants can effectively begin the process of

reconciling interests, they may need to vent tl)eir
emotions.

Rarely are emotions absent from disputes. Emotions often

generate disputes, and disputes, in tum, often generate

emotions.

Frustration underlay the miner's initial outburst to the

shift boss; anger at the shift boss's response spurred him

to

provoke the strike.

Expressing underlying emotions can be instrumental

in negotiating a resolution. Particularly in interpersonal

disputes,

hostility may din;:iinish significantly it the aggrieved

party vents her anger, resentment, and frustration in from

of

the blamed party, and the blamed party acknowledges the

validity of such emotions or, going one step further, offers

an

7
Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes

apology.• With hostility reduced, resolving the dispute on

the

basis of interests becomes easier. Expressions of emotion

have

a special place in certain kinds of interests-based

negotiation

and mediation.

Determini12g Who Is Right

Another way to resolve disputes is t0 rely on some inde·

pendent standard with perceived legitimacy or fairness to

determine who is right. As a shorthand for such

independent

standards, we use the term rights. Some rights are

formalized

in law or contract. Other rights are socially accepted stan·

<lards of behavior, such as reciprocity, precedent, equality,

and

seniority.' In the boots dispute, for example, while the

miner
had no contractual right to new boots, he [el t that
standards

of fairness called for the company to replace personal

property

stolen from its premises.

Rights are rarely clear. There are often different-and

sometimes contradictory-standards that apply. Reachrng

agreement on rights, where the outcome will' determine

who

gets what, can often be exceedingly difficult, [Link]

lea~ing

the parties to turn to a third party to determrne who 1s

right. The prototypical rights procedure is adjudication, in

which disputants present evidence and arguments to a

neutral

third party who has the power to hand down a binding

decision. (In mediation, by contrast, the third party does

not

have the power to decide the dispute.) Public adjudication

is provided by courts and administrative agencies. Private

adjudication is provided by arbitrators.•

Determining Who Is More Powerful

A third way to resolve a dispute is on the basis of

power. We define power, somewhat narrowly, as the ability

to

coerce someone to do something he would not otherwise

do.

Exercising power typically means imposing costs on the

other

side or threatening to do so. In striking, the miners

exercised

power by imposing economic costs on the company. The

8 Getting Disputes Resolved

exercise o! power takes two common forms: acts of

aggression,

such as sabotage or physical attack, and withholding the

benefits that derive from a relationship, as when

employees
withhold their labor in a strike.

ln relationships o! mutual dependence, such as between

labor and management or within an organization or a

family,

the question of who is more powerful turns on who is less

dependent on the other.' If a company needs the

employees'

work more than employees need the company's pay, the

company

is more dependent and hence less powerful. How

dependent

one is turns on how satisfactory the alternatives are for

satisfying one's interests. The better the alternative, the

less

dependent one is. If it is easier for the company to replace

striking employees than it is for striking employees to find

new jobs, the company is less dependent and thereby

more

powerful. In addition to strikes, power procedures include

behaviors that range from insults and ridicule to beatings
and

warfare. All have in common the intent to coerce the other

side to settle on terms more satisfactory to the wielder of

power. Power procedures are of two types: power-based

negotiation,

typified by an exchange of threats, and power contests,

in which the parties take actions to determine who will

prevail.

Determining who is the more powerful party without a

decisive and potentially destructive power contest is

difficult

because power is ultimately a matter o! perceptions.

Despite

objective indicators of power, such as financial resources,

parties'

perceptions of their own and each other's power often

do not coincide. Moreover, each side's perception of the

other's power may fail to take into account the possibility

that the other will invest greater resources in the contest
than

expected out of fear that a change in the perceived

distribution

of power will affect the outcomes of future disputes.

Interrelationship Among Interests, Rights, and Power

The relationship among interests,· rights, and power

can be pictured as a circle within a circle within a circle (as

Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes

Figure l. Interrelationships Among Interests, Rights, and

Power.

Interests

Rights

Power

in Figure J). The innermost circle represents interests; the

middle, rights; and the outer, power. The [Link]~n of

interests takes place within the context of the parties nghts

and power. The likely outcome of a _dispute if taken to
comt

or to a strike, for instance, helps de[me the bargammg

range

within which a resolution can be found. Similarly, the deter·

mirtation of rights takes place within the context of power.

One party, for instance, may win a judgme1_1t in coi:rt,

but

unless the judgment can be enforced, the dispute will

continue.

Thus, in the process of resolving a dispute, the focus

may shift !rom interests to rights to power and back again.

Lumping It and Avoidance

Not all disputes end with a resolution. Often one or

more parties simply decide to withdraw from the dispute.

Withdrawal takes two forms. One party may decide to

"lump

JO Gelling 'Disputes Resolved

it," dropping her claim or giving in to the other's claim

because she believes pursuing the dispute is not in her
interest,

or because she concludes she does not have the power to

resolve 1t to her satisfaction. The miner would have been

lumping his claim if he had said to himself, "I strongly

disagree

with management's decision not to reimburse me for

my boots, but I'm not going to do anything about it." A

second f?rm of withdrawal is avoidance. One party (or

both)

may decide to withdraw from the relationship, or at least to

c~rtail it signi![Link] of avoidance include

quitung.

the orgamzauon, divorce, leaving the neighborhood, and

staymg out of the other person's way.

. Both avoidance and lumping it may occur in conjuncuon

with particular dispute resolution procedures. Many

power contests mvolve threatening avoidance-such as

threatening
divorce-or actually engaging in it temporarily to

impose .costs on_ the ot?er side-such as in a strike or

breaking

off of d1plomat1c relations. Many power contests end with

the

loser lumping her claim or her objection to the other's

claim.

Others end with the loser engaging in avoidance: leaving

or

[Link] her distance from the winner. Similarly, much

negotiatlon

ends with one side deciding to lump it instead of

pursuing the claim. Or, rather than take a dispute to court

or engage in coercive actions, one party (or both) may

decide

to break off the relationship altogether. This is common

in social contexts where the disputant perceives

satisfactory

alternatives to the relationship.

Lumping it and avoidance may also occur before a

claim has been made, thus forestalling a dispute. Faced
with

the problem of stolen boots, the miner might have decided

to

:ump. it and not m~ke a claim for the boots. More

drastically,

m a ht of exasperauon, he might have walked off the job

and

never returned.

Which Approach Is "Best"?

When the mine superintendent described the boots

dispute

to us, he expressed a preference for how to resolve dis-

ll

Three Approaches to Resohing Disputes

putes. In our language, he was saying that on the whole ii

was better to try to reconcile interests than to focus on

who

was right or who was more powerful. But what d?es

"better"
mean? And in what sense, if any, was he correct m
behevmg

that focusing attention on interests is better?

What "Better" Means: Four Possible Criteria

The different approaches to the re~olution of

disputesinterests,

rights, and power-generate different costs and

benefits. We focus on four criteria in comparing them:

transaction

costs, satisfaction with outcomes, effect on the

relationship,

and recurrence of disputesn

Transaction Costs. For the mine superintendent, "better"

meant resolving disputes without strikes. More generally,

he wanted to minimize the costs of disputing-what may

be called the transaction costs. The most obvious costs of

striking were economic. The '?[Link] payr~ll and the

overhead costs had to be met while the mme stood idle.

Sometimes
strikes Jed to violence and the destruction of company

property. The miners, too, incurred costs-lost wages. !hen

there were the lost opportunities for the company: a senes

of

strikes co11ld lead to the Joss of a valuable sales contract.

In

a family argument, the costs would include the frustra'ting

hours spent disputing, the frayed nerves and tension

headaches,

and the missed opportunities to do more enjoyable or

useful tasks. All dispute resolution procedures carry

transaction

costs: the time, ·money, and emotional energy expended

in disputing; the resources consumed and destroyed; and

the

opportunities lost.12

Satisfaction with Outcomes. Another way to evaluate

different approaches to dispute resolution is by the

[Link]'
mutual satisfaction with the result. The outcome of the
stnke

could not have been wholly satisfactory to the miner-he

did

not receive new boots-but he did succeed in venting his

frustration and taking his revenge. A disputant's

satisfaction

depends largely on how much the resolution fulfills the

interests

that Jed her to make or reject the claim in the first place.

12 Getting Disputes Resolved

Satisfaction may also depend on whether the disputant

believes

that the resolution is fair. Even if an agreement does

not wholly fulfill her interests, a disputant may draw some

satisfaction from the resolution's fairness.

Satisfaction depends not only on the perceived fairness

of the resolution, but also on the perceived fairness of the

dispute resolution procedure. Judgments about fairness
turn

on several factors: how much opportunity a disputant had

to express himself; whether he had control over accepting

or

rejecting the settlement; how inuch he was able to

participate

in shaping the settlement; and whether he believes that

the

third party, if there was one, acted fairly. rn

· Effect on the Relationship. A third criterion is the long·

term effect on the parties' relationship. The approach

taken

to resolve a dispute may affect the parties' ability to work

together on a day-to-day basis. Constant quarrels with

threats

of divorce may seriously weaken a marriage. In contrast,

marital counseling in which the disputing partners learn to

focus on interests in order to resolve disputes may

strengthen
a marriage.

Recurrence. The final criterion is whether a particular

approach produces durable resolutions. The simplest form

of

recurrence is when a resolution fails to stick. For example,

a

dispute between father and teenage son over curfew

appears

resolved but breaks. out again and again. A subtler form of

recurrence takes [Link] a resolution is reached in a

par·

ticular dispute, but the resolution fails to prevent the same

dispute from arising between one of the disputants and

some-·

·one else, or conceivably between two different parties in

the

same community. For instance, a man guilty of sexually

harassing an employee reaches an agreement with his

victim

that is satisfactory to her, but he continues to harass other

women employees. Or he stops, but other men continue to

harass women employees in the same organization.

The Relationship Among the Four Criteria. These four

different criteria are interrelated. Dissatisfaction with

outcomes

may produce strain on the relationship, which con·

tributes to the recurrence of disputes, which in turn

increases

13

Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes

transaction costs. Because the different costs typically

increase

and decrease together, it is convenient to refer to all four

together as the costs of disputing. When we refer to a

[Link]

approach as "high-cost" or "low-cost," we mean not JUSt

transaction costs but also dissatisfaction with outcomes,

strain

on the relationship, and recurrence of disputes.

Sometimes one cost can be reduced only by increasing

another, particularly in the short term. If father and son sit

down to discuss their conflicting interests concerning

curfew,

the short-term transaction costs _in terms of time and

energy

may be high. Still, these costs may be more than offset by

the

benefits of a successful negotiation-an improved

relationship

and the cessation of curfew violations ..

Which Approach Is Least Costly?

Now that we have defined "better" in terms of the four

types of costs, the-question remains whether the mine

superintendent

was right in supposing that focusing on interests is

better. A second question is also imporrant: when an

interests·

based approach fails, is it less costly to focus on rights or

on
power?

Interests Versus Rights or Power. A focus on interests can

resolve the problem underlying the dispute more

effectively

than can a focus on rights or power. An example is a

grievance

filed against a mine foreman for doing work that

contractually

only a miner is authorized to do.. Often the real problem is

something else-a miner who feels unfairly assigned to an

unpleasant task may file a grievance only to strike back at

his

foreman. Clearly, focusing on what the contract says about

foremen

working "l!'ill not deal with this underlying problem. Nor

will striking to protest foremen working. But if the foreman

and miner can negotiate about the miner's future work

tasks,

the dispute may be resolved to the sa,isfaction of both.

Just as an interests-based approach can help uncover

hidden problems, it can help the parties identify which

issues

are of greater concern to one than to the other. By trading

off issues of lesser concern for those of greater concern,

both

14 Getting Disputes Resolved

parties can gain from the resolution of the dispute. H

Consider,

for example, a union and employer negotiating over two

issues: additional vacation time and flexibility of work

assign·

ments. Although the union does not like the idea of

assignment

flexibility, its clear priority is additional vacation.

Although the employer does not like the idea of additional

vacation, he cares more about gaining flexibility in

assigning

work. An agreement that gives the union the vacation days

it
seeks and the employer flexibility in making work assign·

mems would likely be satisfact0ry to both. Such joint gain

is

more likely to be realized if the parties focus on each

side's

interests. Focusing on who is right, as in litigation, or on

who is more powerful, as in a strike, usually leaves at least

one party perceiving itself as the loser.

Reconciling interests thus tends to generate a higher

level of mutual satisfaction with outcomes than

determining

rights or power.,; If the parties are more satisfied, their

rela·

tionship benefits, and the dispute is less likely to recur.

Determining

who is right or who is more powerful, with the

emphasis on winning and losing, typically makes the

relationship

more adversarial and strained. Moreover, the loser

frequently does not give up, but appeals to a higher court
or

plots revenge. To be sure, reconciling interests can

sometimes

take a long time, especially when there are many parties

to

the dispute, Generally, however, these costs pale in

comparison

with the transaction costs of rights and power contests

such as trials, hostile corporate takeovers, or wars.

In sum, focusing on interests, compared to focusing on

rights or power, tends to produce higher satisfaction with

outcomes, better working relationships and less

recurrence,

and may also incur lower transaction costs. As a rough

generalization,

then, an interests approach is less costly than a

rights or power approach.

Rights Versus Power. Although determining who is

right or who is more powerful can strain the relationship,

deferring to a fair standard usually takes Jess of a toll than

giving in to a threat. In a dispute between a father and

teenager

over curfew, a discussion of independent standards such

15

Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes

as the curfews of other teenagers is likely to strain the

rela·

tionship less than an exchange of threats.

Determining rights or power [Link] becomes a

contest-a

competition among the parties t0 determine who will

prevail. They may compete with words to persuade a

thirdparty

decision maker of the merits of their case, as in

adjudication;

or they may compete with actions intended to show

the other who is more powerful, as in a proxy fight. Rights

contests differ from power contests chiefly in their transac·

tion costs. A power contest typically costs more in

resources

consumed and opportunities lost. Strikes cost more than

arbitration.

Violence costs more than litigation. The high transaction

costs stem not only from the efforts invested in the.

fight but also from the destruction of each side's

resources.

Destroying the opposition may be the very object of a

power

contest. Moreover, power contests often create new

injuries

and new disputes along with anger, distrust, and a desire

for

revenge. Power contests, then, typically damage the

relationship

more and lead to greater recurrence of disputes than do

rights contests. In general, a rights approach is less costly

than a power approach.

Proposition

To sum up, we argue that, in general, reconciling interests

is less costly than determining who is right, which in

turn is less costly than determining who is more powerful.

This proposition does not mean that focusing on interests

is

invariably better than focusing on rights and power, but

simply

means that it tends to result in lower transaction costs,

greater satisfaction with outcomes, less strain on the

relationship,

and less recurrence of disputes.

Focusing on Interests Is Not Enough

Despite these general advantages, resolving all disputes

by reconciling interests alone is neither possible nor

desirable,

It is useful to consider why.

16 Getting Disputes Resolved

When Determining Rights or Power Is Necessary

In some instances, interests-based negotiation cannot

occur unless rights or power procedures are first

employed to

bring a recalcitrant party to the negotiating table. An

environmental

group, for example, may file a lawsuit [Link] a

developer to bring about a negotiation. A community group

may organize a demonstration on the steps of the town

hall

to get the mayor to discuss its· interests in improving

garbage

collection service.

In other disputes, the parties cannot reach agreement

on the basis of interests because their perceptions of who

is

right or who is more powerful are so diHerent that they

cannot

establish a range in which to negotiate. A rights procedure

may be needed to clarify the rights .boundary within

which a negotiated resolutfon can be sought. If a

discharged

employee and her employer (as well as their lawyers)

have

very diHerent estimations about whether a court would

award

damages to the employee, it will be difficult for them to

nego.

tiate a settlement. Nonbinding arbitration may clarify the

parties' rights and allow them to negotiate a resolution.

Just as uncertainty about the rights of the parties will

sometimes make negotiation difficult, so too will

uncertainty

about their relative power. When one party in an ongoing

relationship wants to demonstrate that the balance of

power

has shifted in its favor, it may find that only a power

contest

will adequately make the point. It is a truism among labor

relations practitioners that a conflict-ridden
union-management

relationship often settles down after a lengthy strike.

The strike reduces uncertainty about the relative power of

the

parties that had made each party unwilling to concede.

Such

long'.term benefits sometimes justify the high transaction

costs of a power contest.

In sc,me disputes, the interests are so opposed that

agreement is not possible. Focusing on interests cannot

resolve

a dispute between a right-to-life group and an abortion

clinic

over whether the clinic will continue to exist. Resolution

will likely be possible only through a rights contest, such

17

Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes

as a trial, or a power contest, such as a demonstration or
a

legislative battle.

When Are Rights or Power Procedures Desirable?

Although reconciling interests is generally less costly

than determining rights, only adjudication can

authoritatively

resolve questions of public importance. If the 1954

Supreme

Court case, Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483),

outlawing

racial segregation in public schools, had been resolved

by negotiation rather than by adjudication, the immediate

result might have been the same-the black plaintiff would

have attended an all-white Topeka, Kansas public school.

The

societal impact, however, would have been far less

significant.

Asit was, Brown laid the groundwork for the elimination of

racial segregation in all of American public life. In at least

some cases, then, rights-based court procedures are

preferable,

from a societal perspective, to resolution through interests·

based negotiation.16

Some people assert that a powerful party is ill-advised

to focus on interests when dealing regularly with a weaker

party. But even if one party is more powerful, the costs of

imposing one's will can be high . .Threats must be backed

up

with actions from time to time. The weaker party may fail
to

fully comply with a resolution based on power, thus

requiring

the more powerful party to engage in expensive policing.

The

weaker party may also take revenge-:in small ways,

perhaps,

but nonetheless a nuisance. And revenge may be quite

costly
to the more powerful if the power balance ever shifts, as it
can

quite unexpectedly, or if the weaker party's cooperation is

ever

needed in another domain. Thus, for a more powerful

party,

a focus on interests, within the bounds set by power, may

be

more desirable than would appear at first glance.

Low-Cost Ways to Determine Rights and Power

Because focusing on rights and power plays an imporole

in effective dispute resolution, differentiating rights

18 Getting Disputes Resolved

and power procedures on the basis of costs is useful. We

distinguish

three types of rights and power procedures: negotiation,

low-cost contests, and high-cost contests. Rights-based

negotiation is typically less costly than a rights contest

such
as court or arbitration. Similarly, power-based negotiation,

marked by threats, typically costs less than a power

contest in

which those threats are carried out.

Different kinds of contests incur different costs. lf

arbitration

dispenses with procedures typical of a court trial

(extensive

discovery, procedural motions, and [Link]), it can

be much cheaper than going to court. In a fight, shouting

is

less costly than physical assault. A strike in which

·workers

refuse only overtime work is less costly than a full strike.

The Goal:

An Interests-Oriented Dispute Resolution System

Not all disputes can be-or should be-resolved by

reconciling

interests. Rights and power procedures can sometimes

accomplish what interests-based procedures cannot. The

problem is that rights and power procedures are often

used

where they are not necessary. A procedure that should be

the

last resort too often becomes the first resort. The goal,
then,

is a dispute resolution system that looks like the pyramid

on

the right in Figure 2: most disputes are resolved through

reconciling

interests, some through determining who is right,

and the fewest through determining who is more powerful.

By contrast, a distressed dispute resolution system would

look

like the inverted pyramid on the left in Figure 2.

Comparatively

few disputes are resolved through reconciling interests,

while many are resolved through determining rights and

power. The challenge for the systems designer is to turn
the

pyramid right side up. It is to design a system that

promotes

the reconciling of interests but that also provides low-cost

ways to determine rights or power for those disputes that

cannot or should not be resolved by focusing on interests

alone. The chapters that foilow discuss how a designer

might

go about creating such a system.

19

Three Approaches to R olving Disputes

Figure 2. l\foving (rom a Distressed to an Effective

Dispute Resolution System.

Rights

Interests

Distressed System Effective System

Transcription – Introduction to power, rights, and interests

We can do some mapping of conflict resolution methods against these stances of
power, rights, and interests. We will be exploring these methods in depth later in the
course, but here I just want to do a bit of initial mapping.
Court adjudication is a rights-based approach to resolving conflict. The court system is
the pre-eminent rights-based process. The courts task is to ascertain the rights of the
individuals before the court, and then to determine what outcome flows from those
rights. Once the decision is made, there is a power element where the court has the
power to enforce its ruling.
Arbitration is also a rights-based approach as well, though it happens through a private
process. The arbitrator’s task is similar to that of a judge, though it happens in the
context of a contract that has set out the parties rights. Arbitration also has enforcement
mechanisms.
Mediation is usually an interest based process, though there are some models of
mediation that are focused on rights.
Negotiation is an interesting phenomenon—most of the literature focuses on negotiation
as an interest based approach, however, it can also be done from a power stance.
Arguably, a negotiation where the goal is simply to arrive at the price of an item for sale
is power based. The parties are drawing on various persuasive and power resources to
convince the other party to agree to what they want.
Alternatively, a negotiation where the lawyers are involved is usually conducted in light
of what the lawyers know is a likely outcome if the case in to court. In that situation, the
negotiation becomes a rights based process as the lawyers work to balance the rights
of the parties.
What is interesting is that in a negotiation over a parenting plan after the demise of an
intimate relationship is often experienced by the parties as power based.
Suppose each party is willing to agree to a 50/50 parenting split, and in beginning to
negotiate, they each propose an 80/20 split. That 80/20 split is experienced by each as
a power move by the other. What often flows from this difficulty is the engagement of
lawyers, who negotiate in terms of what the courts would likely do—that is they engage
in a negotiation that is rights based.
What doesn’t usually happen is an interests-based conversation that explores the
needs, desires, fears, and concerns of the parties.
What also underlies this dynamic is the issue of trust. After the demise of an intimate
relationship, trust is hard to find. An absence of trust contributes to a desire to balance
power.
That is what rights based processes do. By focusing on the rights of the parties, they
build on a system that draws on outside standards with which both parties need to
comply. Rights based processes can function in the absence of trust. But interest based
approaches to conflict resolution, on the other hand, cannot function without some level
of trust.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Transcription – Power as a method for resolving conflict

We have already dealt at some length with the nature of power. The issue here though
is not what power is, but what it looks like as a method of resolving conflict.
A simple example:
A number of years ago I did a mediation in a workplace where two members of a
leadership team had been in conflict with each other for 10 years. They did not have the
tools for resolving their differences themselves, and the organization gave them no help
in resolving their differences as they arose.
As a result, whenever they disagreed on something, and this happened often as their
roles frequently intersected, they would fire emails to their CEO explaining their
disagreement and asking him to solve it. Of course, you ought to be thinking ABC
triangles at this point.
Unfortunately, the CEO did not see the problem. Being somewhat conflict averse, the
CEO would simply alternate: this time he said A was right, next time it was B and next
time it was A again. Obviously not a long term solution.
As you can see, this was a power-over approach to conflict resolution. The CEO
decided. There was no attempt to hook his decision to any principle. He simply imposed
his viewpoint on his two staff members. This had consequences.
The primary ones being that the two staff members never learned to solve their
problems themselves. They remained angry at each other, and they remained angry at
the CEO for not helping them deal with these situations better.
Dealing with conflict through power based process has advantages in some contexts:
First, an immediate response is possible. In some situations, such as an emergency
where there is risk of personal harm, power based approaches ensure an immediate
response to get the person out of danger.
Second, it gets things done.
Third, power based processes can resolve deadlocks. Where the parties to a conflict
are simply unable to find a solution power can break the tie and get things moving
again.
Fourth, power can be used in the interest of a weaker party. A simple example, a person
is being assaulted on the street. The presence of law enforcement personnel represents
the introduction of a new source of power in the situation: a power that can stop the
assault.
On the other hand, there are costs to the use of power.
Power methods are disenfranchising. People who are frequently subject to the use of
power to resolve conflict will tend to withdraw from engagement, and perhaps give up
on the possibility of actually addressing conflict on their own.
Second, power is easy to subvert, especially when there are multiple forms of power
available for use. Anyone who has worked in an extremely hierarchical workplace
knows the many ways that employees find to subvert the power structure.
Third, in power based systems the organization doesn’t get the benefit of the wisdom of
the group. People at multiple places on the hierarchy have knowledge that is useful for
responding to difficult situations. All knowledge from below is cut off from the larger
system when power-based approaches are used.
Fourth, power is inherently win/lose. There are no opportunities to find both solutions
that benefit both parties.
Fifth, power systems can create a foe that cannot be deterred from opposition. In part,
this is a function of the win/lose character of power. People who lose repeatedly
become committed to overthrowing the structures of power.
And sixth, power can create escalating interactions. In other words the exercise of
power can easily kick a conflict up to level five.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Transcription – Rights defined

Rights are a set of enforceable entitlements that come to us from a variety of sources.
Some rights are said to be inherent in being human. Thus the UN Declaration of Human
Rights says in its preamble that the rights enumerated in the document are not created
by the document. Rather, the document claims to name the rights we already have.
That is why it is called a declaration of human rights. It is declaring the rights that are
already in existence.
Some rights are granted to us through national constitutional documents. Some rights
are granted to us by legislation. And some rights are given to us by contract. When I
sign a contract to provide services to a client for which the client agrees to pay, the
contract gives the client the right to expect the services and it gives me the right to
payment. And finally, some rights come to us by means of agreed upon practice or
standards. Thus in certain business contexts the agreed upon standards for conducting
business have reached the level of being enforceable if someone fails to live up to those
standards.

Rights in healthy and unhealthy systems

In healthy systems, rights codify power and interests in order to manage power and
maximize general interests. For example, in Canadian law the violation of one’s rights
by a more powerful person gives rise to a claim that can be brought before a tribunal or
the court in order to have the rights adjudicated, and if the more powerful person has
indeed violated my rights, there will be some form of compensation. More
fundamentally, the healthy system would have a robust listing of rights such that the
largest number of people would be protected.
In unhealthy systems, rights codify power and interests to maximize power and
minimize general interests. This means that a claim for the violation of one’s rights may
easily result in a finding in favour of the more powerful person even if your rights have
indeed been violated. Even more fundamentally though, in a healthy system what we
may consider a right in Canada (for example the free exercise of religion) may not be a
right in the unhealthy system. There are places where there are limits on the free
exercise of religion. Even in what is considered a rights-based society such as the
United States we can see hints of this unhealthy approach in relation to the practice of
Islam after 9 /11. Thus, there have been situations where various governments in the
United States have sought to limit the construction of mosques, and it wasn’t always
clear whether the courts would uphold religious rights.

Rights can be framed both positively and negatively.

A positive right might be a statement that everyone has the right to practice the religion
of their choice. Framed negatively, this would be a statement that every person has the
right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of religion. Most human rights
legislation is framed in terms of negative rights. They enumerate prohibited grounds of
discrimination and then define a set of discriminatory practices.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Topic 2
SOURCES OF RIGHTS

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the opening section of the

Canadian Constitution sets out a range of rights.

Interestingly, the charter starts with the following in Section 1: The Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to

such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and

democratic society.

This section clearly delineates the idea that rights are not absolute. There are certain

ways that rights can be limited. For example, Section 2b sets out the fundamental

freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and

other media of communication. But in Canada, Section 318 of the Criminal Code defines

“hate propaganda” as an offense. Its constitutionality has been upheld by the SCC on

the basis of Section 1 of the charter.

In Section 2, everyone delineates a number of other fundamental freedoms including:

freedom of conscience and religion,

freedom of peaceful assembly, and

freedom of association.

Section 15 guarantees equality before the law, equal benefit without discrimination of

race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Every province has a human rights code that sets out various prohibited grounds of

discrimination and various areas of life within which the prohibition applies.

i. Section 5 (1): Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to

employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin,

colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,

gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or

disability.

ii. Section 5 (2): Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from

harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by

another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic

origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression,

age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes a wide range of rights that are

said to be universal and not subject to creation or removal by any legislation. The

declaration of the UN, and membership in the UN presupposes adherence to the

declaration and that the member states will operationalize these rights by legislation.

Some examples of the enumerated rights:

i. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

ii. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade

shall be prohibited in all their forms.

iii. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading

treatment or punishment.

The Human Rights Code

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Geneva conventions are a series of international agreements developed after World

War I regarding the conduct of warfare. They are sometimes collectively referred to as

the law of war. They are a set of rules meant to govern conduct in war time and

signatories to the conventions are expected to operationalize the conventions through

national legislation.

4th Geneva Convention:

Parties to the armed conflict must, as a minimum adhere to minimal protections for:

i. Non-combatants

ii. Members of armed forces who have laid down their arms

iii. Combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention,

or any other cause

These minimum include the following:

i. S hall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following pr ohibitions:

a) v iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,

cruel treatment and torture;

b) t aking of hostages;

c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading

treatment ;

d) t he passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without

prev ious judgment pronounced by a r egularly constituted court, affording

all the judicial guarantees which are recogniz ed as indispensable by

civilized peoples.

While these may seem odd, given the difficulty in enforcement, they do on occasion rise

to the level of contention. Several examples:

i. During the war in Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was captured his photograph, in

which he was clearly suffering injury was circulated to the media. This was in

violation of the Geneva Convention and there was criticism of the United States

government in the press for doing this.

ii. The treatment of prisoners in the United States prison at Abu Ghraib during the

Iraq war was clearly in contravention of the conventions and there were

prosecutions as a result, though generally at lower levels of the military, not at

the decision making levels.

Geneva Convention

iii. There was much toing and froing in the press in regard to the war in

Afghanistan. The Geneva Conventions are written on the assumption that a war

is being fought between regular armies. In doing so, they distinguish between

enemy combatants and illegal or unprivileged combatants. Many of the cases

regarding, for instance, Omar Khadr, turn on this distinction and the different

rights that applied to regular combatants and unprivileged combatants.

There is a huge field of rights accorded to us through most legislation, through the

standard operations of business relations, and through contract.

Example: Tim Horton’s Coffee

The rights associated with a cup of coffee range from:

The rights of the grower

The rights related to transhipment, such as overflight rights for the plane

carrying the coffee

Currency exchange

Canadian labour law

Health and safety rules

Contract between you and the store for the transfer of the coffee to you

Issues of product liability

Non-human Rights Legislation, Custom and

Contract

Transcription – Using rights to resolve conflict

Generally the use of rights to resolve conflicts involves the use of a third party to
determine the ways that rights apply in a situation. In Canadian society the main system
for doing this is the courts. And this is the case in both civil and criminal courts. Though
there are different rights at stake, the system is the same—after presentation of the
evidence and the making of the arguments the court will apply the law and ascertain
what rights are at stake, what rights have been violated, and what needs to happen as a
result. This is easiest to see in a case involving breach of contract—the court will
consider the rights set out in the contract, the behaviour of the parties, any relevant law
from outside the contract, determine whether one party or the other (or both) are in
breach of the terms of the contract, and will make an order about what to do.
So, suppose I have hired a contractor to do a renovation on my house. At some point
things fall apart. The contractor claims he has done the work and is entitled to payment,
and I claim he has not finished the work and is therefore not entitled to payment. If we
cannot figure this out we can file all the necessary paperwork with the court, present the
evidence, and make our arguments. The court will look at the contract, look at the
evidence related to the completion of the work and determine whose rights under the
contract have been violated—my right to the completion of the work based on the
contract, or the contractor’s right to payment based on the work completed.
In some material that you may read regarding rights, the discussion focuses on
rights-based approaches to conflict resolution being about deciding who is right. It may
seem that way in some cases—after all, the court in my example decides whether I was
right in asserting the work wasn’t done, or the contractor is right in asserting that the
work is done and I owe payment. I think however that this explanation doesn’t always
work, and I think it oversimplifies the nature of the court exercise. The issue of who is
right rests on the deeper question of what rights are involved and who has failed to live
up to their obligations.

It is possible to do rights-based negotiation or mediation.

What this looks like is finding a way other than the court to determine what rights are at
stake and how they should be balanced. This is hard to do in negotiation, as the parties
will need to find some way to reach agreement on these issues. There are models of
mediation though that do this. Usually it involves a lawyer with expertise in the field
under dispute working with the parties. What it most often comes to though is the third
party determining what the best outcome would be and then convincing the parties to
agree to that outcome.
Advantages of rights-based systems
First, there is relative consistency. There is general agreement as to the rights at play,
and the system because it is built on precedent operates in consistent ways.
The system is generally fair. The system is built on applying the rights paradigm
regardless of who the parties are. When the system is working as it should people with
widely different resources should be able to get a decision that applies the rules in a
way that is fair.
The system is predictable. Because of the consistency we can often predict the
outcome of any particular dispute. It is most often the cases that present unusual
situations that actually need to go to trial. This is because they don`t quite fit the
patterns already established and so it is not easy to predict the outcomes.
The system is reflective of some standard. It is not random. There are standards against
which we can test whether the court got the answer right.
The system provides avenues for minorities to legitimate their claims. Again, this is
reflective of the idea that the system is basically fair. Because in a healthy system rights
are meant to limit the power of those with more and advance general interests, those
who suffer at the hands of the majority have an avenue for redress. Of course this fails
where the courts are unable to break out of discriminatory ways of thinking.

Disadvantages of rights-based systems

Rights can be used to the exclusion of responsibility. Where people claim a right, for
example to free speech, they can claim it without regard to the responsibility not to harm
others.
People use “rights” as a trump card. This is related the previous point—I can claim my
right as a way to silence you.
We can’t create rules for everything. The range of human behaviour is so huge that
there simply is no way to build a system of rules that governs all of human conduct.
When we do try to build a comprehensive set of rules, the rules often contradict each
other. What this means is that the courts often get into complex balancing arguments.
Where does my right to religious freedom meet your right not to be discriminated
against? And what are the courts to do when these rights contradict each other.
The strict application of rights can be alienating. Because rights-based systems don`t
attend to interests, our basic interests may not be met in the system in fact often they
cannot be. If you have caused me considerable harm and I file a court claim against you
as a result, I may be less interested in compensation than an apology. But in a
rights-based system, the court is unable to give me what I really want—the apology. All
it can do is ascertain whether my rights have been breached, and order compensation
for that fact.
Rights-based systems are systems of winners and losers. Courts ultimately side with
one person or the other. It is a binary system: my win means your loss.
Often, consistent applications of the rules is more important than the quality of the
outcome.
And finally, time and expense can be considerable. The costs for lawyers and
preparation can be overwhelming, and the time needed for a decision form a
rights-based tribunal can be measured in years.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Transcription – Interests as a Method for Resolving

Conflict
In interest-based approaches to conflict resolution, we use the interests to figure out the
best possible outcome. This means a deep exploration of the party`s needs, concerns,
fears, desires. It means going down the iceberg to figure what is actually deep below
the waterline, and then developing a solution responsive to what is learned there. This
is most often done through mediation and negotiation as these are the models suited to
that exploration.

Advantages of interest-based approaches

First, interest-based approaches to conflict result in more ownership of the outcome:
because the parties have built the outcome based on their understanding of their needs,
they own the decisions.
Interest-based approaches rely on the wisdom of the participants.
Third, often these approaches create a more comprehensive solution, one that
addresses all the issues. Often rights-based or power-based approaches address only
the presenting issue. Because of the nature of the conversations in interest-based
models, all the issues get on top of the table and the outcomes address all these issues.
Fourth, those who are impacted by the decision make it. This is a powerful thing. Most
of us resent having decisions made for us without our input. When we get to have a say,
we step in, engage, value each other, and build something that we think will work.
Fifth, the solutions in interest-based models are often longer-lasting. Even though
rights-based decisions often seem to be more durable, the reality is that people
unhappy with such a decision will seek ways to subvert it. In interest-based models,
people own the outcome and so seek to ensure that it survives. When it no longer fits
they will engage in the decisions needed to make it continue to work.
And six, decisions in interest-based models are more likely to address underlying
concerns. This is because the interests are in fact being addressed.

Disadvantages to interest-based approaches

Interest-based models can be time consuming, but this must not be seen in absolute
terms. Power-based approaches can move very quickly, and interest-based models
take more time. However, interest-based models are considerably faster and cheaper
than rights-based models.
Sometimes interests may be incompatible or too difficult to name. In such cases it may
be very hard to articulate and work with the interests so as to achieve an outcome that
really works
In some cases interests conversations can level the playing field (and contain the
conversation) when an appeal to rights may be more appropriate. An example—in some
cases organizations can push for the use of interest-based approaches to resolve
claims of discrimination, making it seem that the discrimination is related only to the
actions of individuals, and is not related to organizational structures that function in
discriminatory ways. Rights-based approaches may be better at addressing these
organizational structures.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.

Transcription – Which one do we use?

We start with rights
Rights may be needed when the parties’ perceptions of rights and power are such that
no negotiation space exists. For example, in my work doing divorce mediation I would
often hear from parties that their lawyers had told them what the rights system would
say about their entitlements. Sometimes these would be completely contradictory. For
example, each might say that according to their lawyer the courts would give them sole
custody and the other parent would have limited access. Clearly there was very little
negotiation space here. If each is being told they are entitled to 80% of the available
resource (that is time with the children) then arguably, each might be willing to settle for
60%. But at that point there is still no overlap of their negotiation range. And there would
be little incentive to move beyond that range. In such circumstances, unless I as the
mediator could find some way to convince them that they were both unrealistic, there
was no reason for them to be in mediation as both were convinced that they would do
much better in court. In such cases, the rights-based system is needed to solve the
conundrum.
Where disputes are about non-negotiable opinions on value issues and a decision is
necessary something other than the interest-based approaches is needed. Again, it is
sometimes possible to get people to move down their icebergs for reasons not directly
related to the issues (for example relationship preservation) but if not, then the
rights-based system is again needed to solve the conundrum.
Where the issue is one of public importance the rights-based system may be needed.
Conflicts that are about moving the larger society in new directions cannot be dealt with
in the privacy of the interest-based systems. Numerous examples abound: cases that
deal with issues of basic equality, such as gender discrimination, or discrimination on
the basis of gender identity may have larger social implications if the issue is shifting
definitions of what is discriminatory. This is less so if the issue is application of an
existing rule. Another issue is that of doctor assisted death in cases of terminal illness.
Again, as societal values shift, the rights system needs to address the issue and begin
the move toward congruence with social values.

Power-based systems
I would argue that power-based systems should be used the least. Other than where
there is immediate danger power-based systems are so damaging to relationships that
they should be avoided if at all possible.

What does this look like?

What this looks like in a society or organization is that the interest-based systems
should be the most frequently used and form the foundation of the system.
Rights-based approaches are then the choice where interest-based options are not
appropriate, and power-based systems are the option of last resort. This is a stable
system as illustrated by the triangle.
Unfortunately many organizations and societies have this reversed with an over
emphasis on power, with little use of interests. This then looks like an inverted pyramid,
a system that is obviously unstable.

© Course Author(s) and University of Waterloo.