THIRD PARTY PEACE-MAKING INTERVENTIONS by monkey6

VIEWS: 3,180 PAGES: 10

More Info
									THIRD PARTY PEACE-MAKING
INTERVENTIONS

CHARACTERISTICS OF INTER-GROOUP CONFLICT

 1. Perception of the other as the “enemy”

 2. Stereotyping.

 3. Decreased communication: Feedback and data input is
    typically cut off.

 4. Communication is distorted and inaccurate.

 5. Each group prises itself and its products more
    positively.

 6. Each group believes that it can do no wrong and the
    other can do no right.

 7. There may even be acts of sabotage against the other
    group.
GENERAL STRATEGIES THAT HAVE
BEEN USED TO DEAL WITH INTERGROUP
CONFLICT

  Using the idea of a common enemy outside
   the group that both groups dislike to bring
   them closer.

  Increasing interaction and communication
   under favourable conditions.

  Finding a super - ordinate goal that both
   groups desire.

  Rotating members of the group.

    Training.
INTERGROUP TEAM BUILDING
INTERVENTION

The aim of this type of intervention is to:

Increase communication and interaction;

Reduce unhealthy competition.

BLAKE, SHEPARD AND MOUTON CAME UP
WITH A METHOD WHICH IS USED
BETWEEN GROUPS THAT ARE STRAINED
AND OVERLY HOSTILE.

The Process:

      I.   To obtain commitment from the
           leaders of each group on their
           willingness to find procedures that
           will improve inter group relations.

      II. Groups are put in different rooms.
          The task of each group is to generate
          two lists. (1) Put down thoughts,
          attitudes, perceptions and feelings
          about the other group. (2) Predict
          what the other group will say about
          them.
III. The groups come together and share
     their lists. No comments or
     discussions, only clarity.

IV. The groups reconvene to (1) discuss
    their reactions to what they have
    learned about themselves from what
    the other group has said (2) Identify
    issues that still need to be resolved
    between the two groups.

V. The two groups come together and
   share their lists, they set priorities,
   and they generate action steps and
   assign responsibilities.

VI. A follow up meeting is convened to
    ensure that the action steps have been
    taken.
VARIATION: FORDYCE AND WEIL

This method can be used with more than two
groups. It can be used where the hostility
between the groups may not be extreme or
severe.

The Steps:

 I. Each group, separately compiles two types
    of lists:
      1) A positive feedback list.
      2) A bug list
      3) An empathy list

II. The two groups come together and share
    the lists; there is no discussion, except for
    seeking clarification.

III. The total group:

      1) Generates a list of major problems and
         unresolved issues between the two
         groups.

      2) These issues are ranked in terms of
         importance.
IV. Sub groups are formed with members from
    each group, who then discuss and work
    through each item.

V. The sub-groups report to the larger group.

  On the basis of the report back and all the
  other information gathered, the group
  proceeds to:

  1) Generate action steps for resolving the
       conflict.

  2) Assign responsibilities for each step.

  3) Record a date by which the steps ought to
       have been carried out.

  With this method (Fordyce and Weil) the two
  groups work together a lot more than Blake,
  Shephard and Mouton`s method.
WALTON`S APPROACH TO THIRD PARTY

PEACE MAKING INTERVENTIONS

WALTON’S METHOD has a lot in common with
group interventions but it is directed more
towards, interpersonal conflict.

Third party interventions involve confrontation
and Walton outlines confrontation mechanisms.
A major feature of these mechanisms is the
ability to diagnose the problem accurately.

The diagnostic model:

The model is based on four elements:
  The conflict issues.
  Precipitating circumstances.
  Conflict relevant acts.
  The consequences of the conflict.

It is also important to know the source of the
conflict.

Sources:

Substantive issues, which is conflict related to
practices, scarce resources, and differing
conceptions of roles and responsibilities.
Emotional issues, involve feelings between the
parties, such as anger, hurt, fear, resentment,
etc.

The former require bargaining and problem
solving.

The latter require restructuring perceptions and
working through negative feelings.

Walton has outlined the ingredients of a
productive confrontation( the process of
addressing conflict), they are:

  1. Mutual positive motivation, which refers to
     the willingness on both parties t resolve the
     conflict.
  2. Balance of power. There ought not be any
     power differentials between the parties
     involved in a confrontation.
  3. Synchronization of confrontation efforts.
     The two parties must address the conflict
     simultaneously.
  4. Differentiation and integration of different
     phases of the intervention must be well
     paced. The intervention involves working
     through negative feelings and ambivalent
     positive feeling. The intervention must
     allow sufficient time for this process to take
     place.
  5. Conditions that promote openness should be
     created. This could be done through setting
     appropriate norms and creating a structure
     that encourages openness.
  6. Reliable communicative signals. This
     statement refers to using language that is
     understood by the parties involved in the
     confrontation.
  7. Optimum tension in the situation. This
     means that the stress experienced by both
     parties ought to be sufficient to motivate
     them but not too excessive.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON NEGOTIATION

These principles were outlined by Fischer, Ury
and Patton.

They involve approaches to people, interests,
options and criteria.

People have different feelings and perceptions
therefore it is important to separate people from
feelings.
Interest. Looking at party interests provide a
vehicle for resolving conflict rather sticking to
inflexible positions that entrench the conflict.
Options ought to be generated in order to come
up with best option for resolving conflict.
Criteria for evaluating the success of the
intervention ought to be clear and objective.

								
To top