Constructive & Destructive Conflict Conflict:

Constructive & Destructive Conflict Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Because everyone is coming from a different place and no two people are exactly alike, conflict is an inevitable part of life. Conflict is not in itself a bad thing. It helps us to define who we really are and sharpens our sense of what really matters. A life with no conflict would be like a landscape with no color -- kind of blah.

And if we are unwilling to fight for what we want or need, we will often experience lack of fulfillment. What's important, then, is not to avoid conflict but to deal with it constructively. A destructive conflict harms the relationship between the parties. Both parties should be satisfied with the way the conflict works out. If one party feels that he or she lost the fight, that party is likely to be left feeling angry and resentful. The object should not be to win.

The goal should be to work things out in a way that does not harm the relationship. When the parties in a relationship use tactics like coercion or manipulation during a conflict, an escalatory conflict spiral may occur. The conflict becomes more heated, goes around in circles, and becomes more and more damaging as each party tries to "get" the other. The communication is characterized by cruelty, mean remarks, and personally directed insults (Hocker & Wilmot, 2007).

Here is an example of a destructive conflict in the beginning stage, which I overheard tonight at a rural bar. The bar is a pleasant place overlooking the lake where families feel comfortable enough to bring their children. The conflict was between two brothers and a woman sitting at a table near the door. The men had found out the bar is for sale and wanted to buy it. The problem was that they wanted the woman to be manager of the bar.

The woman wanted nothing to do with it. She thought the bar was a bad investment. Her boyfriend became angry. He said he and his brother needed her to be a partner and to be with them on it. The woman said she was with them -- she just didn't want to work at this bar. She said, "If you have the money and you want to buy it, I say, 'go for it.' it's your money.

You do what you want, but leave me out of it." The boyfriend said he would leave her out, all right. She said, "Are you threatening to end our relationship?" He said, "You never support me. If I'm spending all this money, I need you to get behind me." The argument went round and round then, repeating all the same things until finally the woman cried. She said, "I still love you. I want to be with you.

Why can't you leave me be?" He said, "You have be for me in this, or else you're against me. And if you're against me, we're through." The conflict had escalated from a disagreement about buying the bar and who should work in it to the possible break up of a long-term relationship. Despite the woman's attempts to focus on the problem, the man kept making it personal. Finally, the woman ran out of the bar in tears.

If the man decides not to buy the bar because of her, he may regret the decision and blame her for it in the future. On the other hand, if she gives in and says she will work in a business that she doesn't believe in, she will not be happy and may even undermine the operation out of revenge. If he gets mean enough about it, she will strike back and the spiral of conflict will escalate.

I was a student at a college where the support personnel went on strike. They weren't asking for a raise -- just for benefits. The administration fought them bitterly and refused to give them anything. After several weeks on strike, the employees were forced to return to work because they ran out of money. The employers had "won." They had broken the strikers. But afterwards, there were bad feelings. The support personnel were in a position to sabotage the administrators, and they did.

Important correspondence got "lost." Phone messages didn't get delivered. Work was late, and deadlines were not met. During the de-escalatory phase of the spiral, many of the support staff began looking for new jobs. They stopped speaking to their bosses and complained all the time. Hocker & Wilmot (2007) point out that although you would think nobody would want this kind of a conflict, some people get rewards from it; for example, a sense of I'm right and he's wrong. I'm a good person. He is a terrible person.

After awhile, the parties can get locked into their negative behavior. Obviously, if you value a relationship, you want to make it stronger and not destroy it. All relationships do experience conflict so getting through it successfully is crucial to maintaining the relationship. it's how conflict is managed that makes the difference between a conflict that makes a relationship stronger and one that doesn't. A productive conflict moves the conflict in a positive direction toward resolution.

When the conflict is over, both parties feel satisfied with the result and want to cooperate with each other. The feel energized and empowered afterward. Each person emerges with a clearer image of him or herself and the other party. The parties feel valued and more connected to each other and more able to connect with people outside the relationship. Productive conflicts take place within good relationships; likewise, they make relationships better and stronger (Hocker & Wilmot, 2007). The goal of constructive conflict is to produce a transformation.