Every community group experiences conflict from time to time. There will be differences which arise between individuals (or factions) within the group, as well as between group members and interests outside the group. The ability to manage and ultimately resolve conflict is essential to the development of effective relationships, whether within the family, at work or in community groups.

1. Identify causes of conflict.
2. Recognize different ways of managing conflict.
3. Resolve conflict through collaboration.
4. Use the skills of third party mediation.

Conflicts occur because people care, because something that is important to them is threatened--their ideas, their values, their goals, their success, their relationships. Most conflict has one or more of the following causes.

Misunderstanding. Conflicting parties may simply misunderstand each other or the situation. They may not communicate clearly. They may not listen carefully. They may not have all the facts or the right facts about the issue. Most conflict is based in miscommunication.

Disagreement about the nature of the issue and its solution. The world is seen differently by every person, and while that is an exciting aspect of the human condition, the conflicts of these differences are inevitable.

The organizational situation itself. Conflict is likely when authority and responsibilities within the group are not clear, when roles are poorly defined, when group goals are uncertain or when group procedures are unclear or unreasonable.

Personal needs are threatened. All of us have certain needs and interests. Every group member enters into a group to meet some personal need or want. When that need or want is threatened or perceived to be threatened, members lash out at what they see as the source--group officers, leaders, co-members, the institution, etc.

There are many ways of managing conflict. To manage conflict is different than resolving conflict. To manage it is to hold it in control, to keep it from getting out of hand, but it will not necessarily get rid of it. All of us as individuals have ways in which we manage the conflicts in our lives. As members of an organization or group, we also have ways of managing conflict either individually or corporately.

Each of us handles conflict differently. I may choose to ignore conflict, hoping the issue will go away. I may blame the conflict on someone else. I may deny that there is any conflict. I may confront or attack the other person. I may use persuasion to convince that person that I'm right. I can also choose to work with that person, one-on-one, to manage the conflict to our mutual satisfaction. I might also seek the services of a third party to help mediate the conflict.

Our effectiveness in dealing with conflict is largely dependent on how we choose to react to it. We have basically three choices. (1) Let it pass and forget it, hopefully without resentment. (2) Work to improve the relationship which may require considerable effort and emotional energy. (3) Attack, depreciate or terminate the relationship, and be willing to live with the consequences. We can either whine, undermine, shine or recline. It is our choice.

Some of the approaches we may use to manage conflict are:

Avoid involvement in the conflict. There are times when we simply don't want to get involved. We may feel the issue is not worth it or we don't have the energy to involve ourselves in it. We may use this method to keep ourselves out of the conflict and leave it to others to handle. The risk is that the decisions made may not be of our liking or the conflict may mushroom into a larger issue, drawing us into it whether we like it or not. Groups as an entity may choose to avoid a conflict and it may go away, especially if it's a trivial issue. In other situations, the group may find that the conflict is growing, requiring more time and more skill to handle it.

Give someone responsibility to solve the conflict. When time is short, responsibility may be given to a group's officer or committee leader or another person in charge to make a decision. This takes the burden off of us as group members or off of the group as a whole. It is an effective strategy when time is short and the group has a great deal of trust in those who will make the decision. The risks of this approach are obvious. In the long run, this method can create highly frustrated and dependent group members. Also, the short range choice may prove not to be a very good one.

Confrontation. There are times when direct confrontation is necessary to bring your needs, interests, or concern to the attention of another. The other person or group may be unaware or insensitive to your needs or the impact of their behavior on you, or they may be avoiding or denying the conflict. In either case, you may need to assertively speak up for yourself, to "rattle their cage," before conflict management can begin. We often avoid such confrontation for fear of what might happen. To use this approach we need skills and experience in how to confront in a positive, caring manner.

Compromise. Compromising means all parties discuss the issue and then accept the minimum they can all live with in order to stop the conflict. The goal is to stop the conflict quickly rather than thoroughly working out the basic conflict issues. The risk is that compromise may stop this conflict situation but leave the door open for similar or even larger manifestations of the conflict later.

Collaboration. This process ultimately is the most effective in managing group conflict, but it can be a time consuming process. It also requires that the parties involved be willing to work together at resolution. The benefit of collaboration is that a good and long lasting solution is found which addresses the root causes of the disagreement. To collaborate, those in conflict state their goals, their needs in the conflict and then listen to the other parties do the same. They then attempt to work through the conflict to a mutually satisfactory outcome. In collaboration, the parties involved attempt to understand the root causes and basic issues of the problem from the perspective and goals of the other, and then work together to find a mutually acceptable long-range solution. (The skills of collaboration will be described later.

Coercion. Often in conflict situations we find ourselves trying to control others, to impose our will or our way on them. We have concluded that

the other party is either ignorant, hard-headed or a troublemaker. We don't have the time nor patience to practice the prescribed skills and "besides it wouldn't do any good anyway." We have allowed the relationship to deteriorate. Power politics or majority rule may be used in our attempt to coerce others. Such strategies can produce short-term gain but often at considerable cost to the individuals involved, with destructive long-term effects on the group or community. No one likes to be pushed around or taken advantage of.

For the effective management and perhaps ultimate resolution of conflict, there are two skills which are absolutely necessary--active listening, and the clear sharing of concerns through "I-statements".

LISTEN:

The area in which we most often fall short in our efforts to manage conflict is in listening. We fail to really listen to the other person--his needs, wants, concerns, fears and the feelings behind them. Rather than listen, we come on strong. We confront, argue, defend, use power and influence to overwhelm the other person. We feel we have heard and understand the other person's view. We thus focus on getting our point across. We try to convince the other person of how right we are. We bring rational, logical ideas to bear, but with limited results.

In order to effectively manage conflict, we first have to listen. This means:

* Stop talking.

* Give the person your total attention. You are not listening if you are thinking about what you are going to say next. Clearly show through your actions that you wish to listen.

* Invite the person to share thoughts, feelings, frustrations about the issue at hand. Use phrases such as "Tell me about it," "Go on," "Good point," or "Please explain what you meant by..... "Seek to clarify the person's needs, interests and concerns.

* Reflect, that is, summarize back to the person what has been said. "You feel....." "You are concerned with....." Reflect the feelings as well as the words spoken, e.g., "You were quite annoyed over....." Paraphrase, don't parrot. Reflective listening clearly shows you are listening, develops rapport, and "nips in the bud" miscommunication.

* Show genuine interest. Not until the other person feels listened to, understood and respected will she be open to your views.

I-MESSAGES:

Active listening is key to your effectiveness in conflict management. Conflict is not, however, resolved through listening alone. You must also clearly convey your opinion, needs, concerns and feelings--hopefully to the other person' s understanding and respect. Only then can collaborative problem solving begin.

Once you have expressed your concern, stop. Your silence allows the other person to think about what you have said, and to speak whatever is on his mind. Seek feedback. The information you receive through listening may overcome a misconception or otherwise modify your need to pursue the issue further. Counter any defensive response with reflective listening. Summarize back in your own words what you understood the person's verbal message and feelings to be: "You feel....." "You think....." "I can see your point." When people become defensive, it is generally useless to keep hammering at them with further I-messages. Instead, take time to listen. Restore mutual respect.

Most conflict is resolved through a simple process of shifting back and forth from active listening to I-messages, back to listening and more I messages as we seek to clarify and understand each other's needs and concerns and the feelings behind them. As you begin to understand more completely one anther's points of view, you move on to collaborative problem solving--to the resolution of the conflict. The key is our willingness to be involved in the process of listening and sharing clear I-messages. For more information on I-messages see Dr. Thomas Gordon, Parent Effectiveness Training 1970, 1975, A Plume Book; Dr. Robert Bolton, People Skills, 1979, Prentice-Hall.

The management of conflict, as covered above, is the first step. If we can manage conflict effectively, we can keep it from getting out of hand. By deciding to do nothing or by letting someone else solve the problem, or through active listening or compromise we can manage conflict. None of these approaches, however, will insure resolution of the conflict. Below we will develop skills in conflict resolution.

Conflicts can be resolved only if conflicting parties are willing to participate in the process of resolution. It is hard work, but when the process is used, it is effective and those involved feel positive about the outcome. The following six steps are a general guide for effective conflict resolution. Each conflict is unique, and it is important to adapt the process to fit specific circumstances.

Only as the individuals involved accept responsibility to do something about a conflict can anything be done. A decision has to be made as to whether this conflict can be resolved and whether you as an individual or group want to resolve it. In deciding, consider: (1) Is the person with whom I have the conflict important to me? (2) Is this issue important enough to work on? (3) Will talking about it improve our relationship? (4) Am I willing to spend the time necessary to resolve it? (5) Do I have the emotional energy necessary to work on it at this time?

If the answers are yes, then approach the other parties in the conflict to see if they are willing to work on resolution. If they are, proceed with the process. If they are not willing, you have only one choice, which is to try to manage the conflict.

There will be times when you do not perceive a problem. But if the other person says "I have a problem" or indicates such through her actions then there is a conflict that needs to be worked out. It takes both parties willing to resolve the conflict for the process to work.

If in considering the above questions some of your answers are no, you may decide to avoid the issue at this time or take other action. There are times when you may not want to take the time or spend the energy to resolve the conflict and you will instead choose to manage it as best you can at that time. All of us do this from time to time, but it is easy to build up resentments when there is no resolution.

As you enter into the process, some basic beliefs about conflict resolution should be kept in mind (Filley, 1975, pp. 60-71): belief in cooperation rather in competition; belief that everyone is of equal value; belief in the views of others as legitimate statements of their position; belief that differences of opinion are helpful; and belief in the trustworthiness of those involved.

Preparation is essential if the process is to be effective. Approach the process as calmly as possible. Emotions are a part of any conflict and must be dealt with, as we shall discuss later. If emotions are out of control, however, wait until the parties involved can cool down. Schedule a time later that day or the next to discuss the conflict in order to set up the process for resolution. Some guidelines for the process are:

Establish a date and time which will provide enough quality time to get through the process. Since each conflict is different, there is no way to set an exact amount of time needed. Agree at the beginning to work for a set period of time at the end of which another time will be set if there is no resolution.

Choose a place to meet which is comfortable and private. A neutral location, one not associated with either party, is best The place needs to be quiet.

Let the other person know that you respect him and his concerns. If there is no respect between the parties, resolution cannot likely occur.

Decide the roles each person will play in the process. If the conflict involves several people, decide if all will take part in the process or if there will be a spokesperson for the conflicting interests. If a mediator or a arbitrator is involved with the parties, clarify that role.

Agree to work on only one issue at a time.

A common mistake individuals (and groups) make in trying to resolve conflict is to focus immediately on solutions to the problem. We spend our time debating the pros and cons of each--before the underlying problem is clearly stated or understood by all parties. For conflict resolution to occur, time must first be taken to clarify the problem from each party's

perspective. Effective problem solvers spend proportionately more time in problem definition than in problem-solving. The most effective way to approach conflict resolution is first to discuss the problem, then discuss its resolution.

In every conflict there are feelings and these MUST be dealt with BEFORE the problem can be solved. To resolve conflict, focus first on the emotional aspects--the anger, distrust, defensiveness, resentment, fear and rejection. Full expression of feeling is an essential part of the problem clarification process. If the emotions get too high, either take a break or set another time, but they should not be ignored.

A number of methods can be used in this clarification step of the process. One is illustrated below. It can be used by two individuals or by a large number. If there is a large group and everyone wishes to speak, it is recommended that a mediator be used. If there is a large group and each conflicting party has selected a spokesperson, a mediator may or may not be needed. (The role of the mediator is described later in this module.)

In the clarification of the problem, the skills of active listening and I-messages, as described above, can be used throughout the process.

Decide who will speak first. All persons involved are to have an equal opportunity to talk.

Person A speaks for a set amount of time (five to ten minutes). Stick to one specific issue. Use I-statements to describe your feelings, "I was hurt by . . .," etc. Describe specifically the behavior/issue/action which is of concern. Avoid loaded words. Eliminate sarcasm, blame, exaggeration and judgements from your statements. Say what you mean. Mean what you say!

Person B listens to A without interruption.

Upon A's completion, B summarizes back to A what was said without mixing in his own thoughts, ideas or interpretation. If A feels that B has not heard and understood, A clarifies while B again listens. This continues until A feels the message has been heard.

Person B then speaks for the allotted period of time.

Person A listens and summarizes back.

Person B acknowledges having been heard.

This process continues for as long as both parties have anything to say on the issue. It is important to stay with one issue even though the temptation will be to bring up more. As others arise, write them down for discussion at another time. If there are several persons to speak on the problem, then move from one side to the other with each side listening as stated above before continuing.

Often, having heard all sides of a problem and vented feelings, conflicted parties will recognize an immediate resolution, acceptable to all. At this point parties can move quickly to step six. More likely, parties will need to proceed with steps four and five.

It is this step in the process that is most important. If the problem in conflict is not fully explored and clarified so that all parties understand each other's position, it is doubtful there will be resolution.

Clearly identify what is most important to each party in the conflict. In every conflict, there are goals which are held in common. People may disagree strongly about how a job should be done, but probably agree that they want the job done. They may have trouble working as a team, but probably agree that if they could work well together all would benefit. It is easier to mobilize joint problem-solving when common goals have been identified.

During the process of step three, some common goals (needs, concerns, frustrations) will come out. Identify these as they come up, stating your agreement. What will emerge is a more narrow specific focus of the conflict, which is then easier to resolve.

Only after step three has been fully completed can step five work. Only to the extent that there is clarification of the problem can it be resolved. The next step is collaborative (joint) problem-solving:

You want ___________________________. I (we) want _____________________________.

Brainstorm possible solutions. In order to keep conflicting parties from prematurely adopting and fighting over solutions, brainstorming is used to generate as many solutions as possible to the conflict. The rules of brainstorming include generating as many solutions as possible without regard to their feasibility.

Think creatively. Don't discuss or argue or question these possible solutions at this time. Just make a list of them. Brainstorming will fail when emotions resurface and people insist on evaluating the suggested solutions as they are brainstormed. This means that the clarification of the problem hasn't been completed and parties need to return to step three.

Evaluate the possible solutions. After both parties are satisfied that an adequate number of options has been proposed, then evaluate them. Each party asks questions about each proposed solution so they understand what is meant. Each party has the right to mark off any of the solutions that are unacceptable to them stating honestly why they are not acceptable.

If most of the solutions get marked off, go back and brainstorm more options. As each alternative is discussed, look for a solution which integrates and builds on the best aspects of each. Modify and combine solutions to come up with a better solution.

Decide on a solution. Often an original solution will emerge and will be recognized and immediately accepted by all parties. If that does not happen and a list of several possible and acceptable solutions remains, then each conflicting party should take paper and, in priority order (1-2-3), write down what each considers the best solution. Lists are then shared. Usually one or two acceptable solutions will appear on each list. Since they are acceptable, take one solution and act on it. If arguments persist at this point as to which solution to act on, the process has not worked and parties need to go back to step three.

Having decided to implement one solution, parties need to decide who will do what, when, how often, etc. Set a time limit (if applicable) as to how long this solution will be tried (usually several weeks or months). Schedule another meeting to continue the discussion and evaluate progress. If the solution is working, continue. If the solution has not worked, go back and repeat the process. If the other party does not follow through on her commitment, confront the person (using the confrontation skills learned in Chapter 9): "Hey, I don't feel it's fair to me that I stuck to my end of the bargain but you didn't. I thought we had our problem solved, and I'm irritated that we apparently haven't." Don't threaten penalties or punishment. Then go back to step three.

There is no guarantee that the problem will be satisfactorily resolved as a result of this process, though it usually is. It does ensure, however, that all persons involved will have a better understanding of the issue. Persons, having been heard, usually feel better about each other and the issue, even when it is not resolved.

An option: Some people find it easier to write about the problem/issue which concerns them. In such cases, each person writes down what she thinks the problem/issue is and her feelings and thought about it. These papers are then exchanged, read and each person writes back to the other about what has been learned. This process continues until both parties agree that the problem has been clarified. At this point (or earlier if agreed by both parties) the process needs to move from a written to a verbal exchange. This option is found to work especially well for families with adolescents.

Conflict resolution can often be assisted by a third party mediator. From time to time each of us will have the opportunity to serve as a mediator in helping others work out differences.

To be helpful, the mediator must remain neutral. The role of mediator is similar to that of a traffic cop. His responsibility is to direct traffic, not promote a given solution or solve the problem for the other parties. The mediator suggests different approaches to resolving the conflict, insures an open and balanced conversation flow, enforces ground rules and protects the individuals involved from personal attack. The mediator treats everyone as a responsible adult, and does not judge or parent. The mediator controls the PROCESS by which decisions are made, but not the CONTENT of those decisions.

The mediator is effective only as long as he or she is trusted by both sides of the conflict. If the mediator intervenes on behalf of a given solution, credibility is lost. It is best not to assume the mediator role on issues on which you have a strong opinion. Adherence to the following steps will increase your effectiveness:

Clarify your role as a mediator. This can be done either formally or informally. For example, "There seem to be strong differences of opinion on this. Can we work together to explore alternatives until we find a solution that is agreeable to everyone? I wish to remain neutral and try to serve as a discussion facilitator in helping you work it out to your mutual satisfaction. Is that agreeable?"

As chairperson or just a member of the group, you may choose to intervene, and ultimately assume the role of mediator. On other occasions, you may offer to serve such a role in able to facilitate discussion. As you become known for your mediation skills, the group will ask you to serve that role when needed. Initially, some form of personal intervention is often necessary to initiate the mediation process. Often it is helpful to call a break to allow emotions to cool, and then initiate the mediation process when you come back.

Set rules for discussion. For example, "I would like each side to clearly state its concern and desires with no interruptions. Then the other side must summarize its understanding of what was said to the other party's satisfaction before stating its concern and desires (and rebuttal). This will continue until both sides feel they have been understood."

Clarify the ground rules (e.g., equal time for each side; no interruptions; we will work until we find a solution that is agreeable to both sides; be respectful; no put downs; keep to one issue). You may wish to set time limits on how long each person (side) can speak before having to give up the floor to the other side (five to ten minutes is suggested).

Clarify underlying problems, objectives, needs and desires. For example, "Bob, would you please summarize for me your concern (what you see the problem to be, what you hope to accomplish through this)?"

Combat "solution-mindedness" (the tendency of people to propose solutions before agreement has been reached as to the problem). Focus attention on problems to be solved rather than on proposals, recommendations or solutions to be approved. When solutions are proposed in this stage of the process, ask the person to define specifically what she wishes to accomplish with the proposal. Continue your questioning until a problem, goal or obstacle is defined. Probe, (e.g., "I'm not clear why.....," "What do you hope to accomplish with.....?"). Defining and reaching agreement on the problem is 75% of the solution.

Encourage the sharing of feelings, the airing of emotions. Get everything out in the open. Only after the "real" problem has been clearly defined can a cooperative search for solutions. Be an active and supportive listener. Summarize the words and feelings expressed: "Mary feels we should....." "Bob suggests....." "Jill, you were disappointed in....." "John, you feel their motive is to....."

Use feedback to check for accuracy of communications. Focus the conflict on facts rather than on hearsay and speculation. Accept the views and feelings of each individual as legitimate. Don't judge. Empathize.

Call on individuals from the other side to summarize their understanding of what was just said. Have the parties communicate directly to each other rather than through you. An important role of the mediator is to slow down the discussion and get each side listening to the other. Only after both sides state they feel they have been understood do you proceed to the next step.

Brainstorm alternatives: The mediator helps a group that is bogged down in arguing the pros and cons of a given proposal (solution) to consider other approaches. Set aside a period of time for brainstorming. Get both parties to agree that during the brainstorming no discussion or evaluation of the alternatives suggested will be permitted. People will be more willing to suggest new approaches if they are protected against ridicule and criticism. If possible, list these alternatives on newsprint or blackboard for all to see. See module LT-3 for specific directions for brainstorming.

Seek to expand possible alternatives. Encourage both parties to search for other acceptable solutions, e.g., "What other approach might work?" Focus attention on defeating the problem rather than each other.

At this point, the mediator might also suggest alternatives. Care should be taken, however, to express those suggestions through questions. "Have you thought out.....?" "Would it help if.....?" "How about.....?" This questioning technique involves the mediator in identifying possible alternatives with the conflicting parties, in contrast to developing "answers" for the conflicting parties. The mediator must remain neutral.

Evaluate the alternatives. Eliminate and modify the identified alternatives until a solution is found that is agreeable to both sides. The mediator identifies and builds on common concerns and focuses attention on points of agreement. "It seems that both of you share a concern for....." "There appears to be agreement on ....."

Where disagreement remains, the mediator helps clarify those differences and seeks to modify the identified alternatives to overcome stated objections. For example, "Side A, what is it about ..... that is not acceptable to you?" "OK, side B, what might be done to overcome that concern?" "Side A, would that be agreeable with you?"

The mediator should continue to use the questioning technique to identify further alternatives and to seek compromise. "Would it be acceptable to you if .....?" "Would you (side A) be willing to....., if you (side B) did .....?" Seek a solution that both parties would be willing to give a trial run.

Clarify the implementation strategy, once an agreement has been reached. Agree on a test period after which further modifications can be made if the selected approach is not working. Clarify what success is to look like.

Reflect on group behavior. At times, it may be necessary to confront the group on its behavior. Freeze the discussion long enough to focus attention on the general behavior of the group. "I'm picking up a take it or leave it attitude. This troubles me." Don't single out individuals. If an individual continues with disruptive, annoying behavior, wait for a break, then take the person aside and share your perceptions with him in an open, frank but caring manner. Serve as a mirror in heightening the group's awareness of its own behavior and the possible consequences of such behavior. Suggest alternatives.

If the discussion gets heated, reflect on what is happening, and then call for a break. If the discussion becomes emotional, it probably indicates the need to go back to clarifying the problem and underlying feelings.

If conducted properly, mediation can be very helpful in resolving conflict in family, work and community situations.

EXERCISES

Part I: Several conflict or potential conflict situations are described below. Review each, and indicate how you might handle the situation using the techniques prescribed in this module.

Situation 1: Joe is hot under the collar. He keeps interrupting, arguing against the proposal under discussion. He is dominating the discussion and keeping others from being heard. As a member of the group, how would you respond? Use the following space to pencil in the words you would use.

Situation 2: How do you handle people who say they'll do something but don't follow through? You are the president of the Chamber of Commerce. Clint is chairman of the Retail Promotion Committee. The year is half over and the committee has only met once. Clint had promised a big promotion in the summer; but it turned out to be a hastily conceived, poorly coordinated sidewalk sale with poor customer turn-out.

1. Draft several I-statements that might be used to confront in a firm but caring manner.

2. From your own experiences, pencil in what you think Clint will say in responding to your I-statements. Consider the following:

a. A combative, defensive response:

b. Makes excuses:

c. Apologizes: Makes further Promises (of questionable commitment):

d. Conveys hurt feelings:

e. Other possible responses:

3. Now indicate how you would handle each of these responses. Pencil in the specific phrases you might use. Indicate how you would shift back and forth from active listening to I-messages.

a. Combative, defensive response:

b. Excuses:

c. Apologies and further promises:

d. Hurt feelings:

e. Other responses:

4. Review the roadblocks listed earlier in this module. Review your responses to #3 above. Could any of your responses be considered roadblocks? Rewrite those responses into cleaner I-messages and non-judgmental listening.

Situation 3: The City Parks and Recreation Commission is holding its regular monthly meeting. The major topic on the agenda is a larger swimming pool. This item has been a part of the agenda at summer meetings of the commission for several years, but has been consistently voted down. This year Tom Donavan, an influential banker in the community and recently appointed to the Commission, has taken upon himself the task of pushing for the pool. He is opposed by Carol Watson who feels there is a much greater need for tennis courts. Another member of the commission, Bill Valenzuela, has been the swing vote for several years, and he doesn't like the emotional bickering.

Tom: (Heatedly) We must get a new swimming pool. The old one is overcrowded. It is becoming both a health and safety hazard. It is the most used recreational facility in this town. For five years we haven't done anything about it. Now is the time.

Carol: But it is only used for a few months each year--five months at the most. If we had tennis courts, we could use them year around. We need them worse than a new swimming pool.

Tom: The high school has courts. People can use them.

Carol: They don't have lights. They are run down and some people think they are only for students and won't use them.

Bill: Maybe we need to study this issue a bit more. It can't hurt to get more information.

1. If you were Carol, what approaches might you take to better manage, and hopefully resolve, this conflict? List at least five options.

2. Review your list, and categorize each according to one of the six approaches to managing conflict described earlier.

3. Evaluate each of the listed options. Indicate the pros and cons of each in the space below. Star (*) the option that you feel would be most effective in managing this conflict.

4. Use the space below to rewrite Carol's two responses to Tom. Indicate the listening phrases she might use to restore respect and open communication.

5. Having used the listening skills to show respect and understanding, indicate below the phrases Carol might now use in setting the stage for collaborative problem-solving (review the six steps for collaboration in conflict resolution).

6. What are some common goals that might bring Tom and Carol together?

7. Brainstorm, below, a list of alternative solutions that might be acceptable to both Carol and Tom in moving from a win/lose to a win/win situation. List at least five.

8. Assume that you are the fourth member of this commission. How would you go about trying to mediate this conflict? Indicate the phrases you would use.

Part II:

If you are in a study group, break into groups of three. Review the three situations. Compare and discuss your responses to each of the questions.

1. Role play situation 2. One of you is to play Clint as described in the situation statement. One of you is to be the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and confront Clint with the prescribed three part I statement. Clint is to respond to the confrontation in a defensive manner. The Chamber president is to then respond with appropriate active listening. Shift from active listening to I-statements and back again as appropriate. Keep the role play going for at least five minutes. Clint can make up his own details. The third person is to serve as observer and after the role play is to reflect on what happened.