Conflict management strategies and applications

Conflict Management

Community Collaboratives and Conflict Management

Potapchuk starts by noting the growth in collaborative approaches to problem solving in communities. Potapchuk then shows that while one might have expected the growth to be accompanied by successful outcomes, collaborative approaches have largely failed. Potapchuk does note some cases where positive outcomes have been achieved but states that he has largely found community collaboratives "that have not found their footing and individuals sharing varying degrees of frustration, disillusionment, disappointment, and anger at the lack of progress" (Potapchuk 1999, 4). One thing that Potapchuk does not consider is what distinguishes those community collaboratives that have succeeded from those that have not. It would seem that considering the differences between the two might give important clues as to what is needed for a community collaborative to be successful and also show what is missing from those collaboratives that have not succeeded.

While Potapchuk does not consider the differences between community collaboratives, he does consider traits that unsuccessful collaboratives share. He notes that "unaddressed racial, cultural, gender, and class issues palpably beat just below the surface, hampering honest interaction and collaboration" (Potapchuk 1999, 4). He also describes how members bicker, how public institutions ignore the collaboratives, and how collaboratives compete against each other. One thing that is not clear from this description is whether Potapchuk is identifying the real problems or the symptoms of that problem. For example, the bickering members, uninterested public institutions, and competing collaboratives may all be symptoms of a failing collaborative, rather than the reason it is failing. It is also not clear whether the unaddressed issues are the reason for the failing, since these unaddressed issues may be present in any group made up of varying people trying to succeed in a common goal.

Based on the analysis, Potapchuk then provides several solutions to the problems. The first is to "articulate a series of criteria focused on readiness and appropriateness in order to delineate when collaborative approaches are appropriate" (Potapchuk 1999, 11). This suggestion has a lot of merit, with it important to notes that a collaborative community approach is not necessarily the best method of solving every community problem. This focus on deciding when the method is useful is especially important when it is considered that widely publicized successful attempts can easily attract people to the idea of a community collaborative, with the belief that it will bring a positive outcome. In reality, the community collaborative may not be the best option and so it is necessary to consider the usefulness of the approach in each situation before assuming that it will be successful.

The second solution given is to "develop more intentional designs to address situational needs and develop stronger supports to ensure success" (Potapchuk 1999, 11). Potapchuk goes on to say that communities need centers of support for collaborative work, including the facilities, tools, and staff needed. There is merit in this suggestion, especially considering that many of the people involved in community collaboration efforts may not be trained or skilled in conflict management, collaboration, and communication. Effective tools and trained staff could help to ensure collaborators are able to work together effectively.

Potapchuk also says that communities need to continue their work on issues of race, class, and culture. This statement links back to Potapchuk's argument that underlying issues limit progress. However, it is unclear whether this is really a problem limiting progress. In fact, it seems that this is a much larger issue and one that collaborative community groups may not be able to overcome. Instead, it seems like it would be more reasonable for groups to be given the tools to work together to solve the problem they were created to solve despite their differences, rather than to try and eliminate their differences.