Conflict Resolution Tools

Let us talk about stalemate and de-escalation of conflict.

There are 5 reasons why conflicts stop escalating; first, one party overwhelms the other and other yields; second, one party is able to take unilateral advantage of the other; third, two parties avoid further conflict; fourth, a powerful party imposes a settlement; fifth, two parties cease fighting and negotiate for settlement.

When the situation reaches a level where two parties perceives that continuing the conflict will not take them anywhere and will be risky and costly, that is perceived stalemate. Again, there are reasons why the parties perceive this way; 1) contentious tactics fail and simply lose their bite; 2) resources necessary to carry out further conflict are exhausted; 3) parties lose some social support or constituencies/backers; 4) costs and risks are so great that both parties conclude that escalation must be avoided.

This perceived stalemate is subjective. But it serves as benchmark in the analysis and attempt to resolve the conflict. Therefore, the recognition of stalemate depends heavily on the skill of a conflict analyst.

Let’s go to de-escalation. How does it start? Well, there must be an acceptance from the party that the other is an interdependent partner in the endeavor for peace. One should regard the other as necessary devil to contend with. This opens the door for negotiation. One must also have optimism of success which may be anchored on working trust.

From de-escalation, how can negotiation move forward? There are 3 approaches to this. 1) contact and communication allow parties to explain the actions done which will lead to understanding of each other, 2) cooperation on other issues or having superordinate goals that are common to parties, 3) unilateral conciliatory initiatives do not require the acquiescence of the other but it simply reach out to build trust.

Problem solving is a challenge to find a mutually acceptable resolution. Structurally, problem solving can be compromise and integrative solutions. Simply put, compromise is an agreement to concede on the middle ground from the two incompatible goals and interests. Integrative solutions, however, reconcile the goals and interests of each party.

There are 5 types of integrative solutions. 1) expanding the pie means increasing the available resources 2) non-specific compensation refers to the situation where one party gets what it wants while the other is compensated for other means, 3) logrolling describes a situation when each party concedes on issues based on its priorities, 4) cost-cutting points to a situation where the party gets what it wants and the cost of other’s want is reduced or eliminated, 5) bridging is about reframing the issue – new options are put forward to satisfy the underlying interests of both parties.