Conflict Resolution Getting to Yes

Conflict Resolution

Getting to Yes and Conflict Resolution

What are tactics in conflict resolution processes and how are they related to strategies? Why are they so important and crucial to the success of conflict termination?

A strategy is a roadmap, a way of achieving a goal. A tactic is a technique used to realize a particular, hopefully effective strategy. In Getting to Yes, authors Roger Fischer, William Ury, and Bruce Patton stress that negotiating strategies must focus on achieving a defined aim and not stimulate more conflict and polarization. The first crucial part of the methodology outlined in Getting to Yes is to separate the people from the problem. By doing so, the true severity of the conflict is illustrated, whether it is minor and solvable, and if the real issue is a deep-seated personal conflict rather than supposed, superficial issue being debated.

The classic example of how personal relationships rather than real issues may be at the heart of a conflict is that of a woman who is angry at her husband's inconsideration but makes the 'problem' the fact that he does not help her with housework. There are 'personal' issues that extend beyond the parameters of the immediate problem that cannot be solved simply by the husband doing dishes. To create a common sympathy, and deal with the problem, one tactic is not deny the emotions at the heart of the conflict make them explicit and acknowledge that they are real. Otherwise another superficial conflict will be created, and the real issue will go unaddressed. But the issues must be confronted in a step-by-step manner. For example, for the wife, to accuse the husband of being irresponsible will only alienate him, just as his insistence that 'there is no reason to get upset over dishes' will only irate her. Instead, be soft on the people, hard on the problem, and find a solution to the dishes -- but also acknowledge the wife's hurt feelings, and the fact that the marital problems must be dealt with to achieve a lasting solution to the household fighting.

Secondly, by focusing on interests, not positions, common ground can be reached. Positions are always polarized, as is exhibited in a case study of the current Middle Eastern conflict -- the Palestinians feel they have a right to a homeland, the Israelis believe they have a right to protect their security in a hostile region. However, both sides desire peace. In terms of their tactics both sides must yield something, neither side can have a 'bottom line' or an intractable position if they are to achieve their ultimate aim, their desire to live safety and security.

Thirdly, it is essential to generate options for mutual gains. Develop multiple options. Generating options will create more dialogue but paring two options against the other will merely dig in the positions of the warring parties even further, and no one will benefit. An example of how generating options has resulted in some positive benefits can be seen in the current writer's strike. Although the strike not resolved, by negotiating some leeway for late night talk show host writers, the talk shows have returned to the air, which will prevent the shows from losing their audiences. If the shows decline in popularity, this will only result in the late night writers as well as the hosts being 'out of a job' once the strike concludes, perhaps far in the future.