The fifth phase consists of the general facilitator suggesting steps that might be taken by both groups to resolves or manage their conflict. This distinction is important. Some elements of disagreement between the two groups might be resolved in a successful manner. The conflict “goes away.” Through this appreciative process, the two groups have found that there is a way in which they can collaborate that leads to the accomplishment of both group’s goals. For instance, rather than the two groups fighting over the portion of the “pie” that each of them can claim, they work together on increasing the size of the pie (finding more resources). The span analysis I introduced earlier in this essay can be of value in this regard.
Alternatively, conflict can be resolved by inviting each group to readjust their assumptions regarding the other group. The flipchart lists can guide each group’s future actions regarding the other group (especially if these actions break up old self-fulfilling patterns) An appreciative approach can also be taken in identifying ways to make fuller use of the resources brough by the other group to one’s organization or community. The two groups might even engage complementary resources on behalf of a joint project. Yet another way in which the conflict can be resolved is by find ways in which members of the two groups can continue learning from one another and engage the other group’s perspectives and practices to be increasingly creative in one’s own planning and problem-solving ventures. “Diversity is good thing” might be the new motto for both groups!
This is all well and good. However, the conflict will frequently not go away. This occurs when the conflict is based on fundamental (and appropriate) differences in priorities, values and sources of contribution to be made by each group to their organization or community. When this is the case, then there should be a focus on the “management” of the conflict rather than on “resolution.” This means discovering or creating ways in which to work with the conflict when it inevitably arises. There might be a sequencing of actions (each based on a high priority for one of the groups). It might instead be facilitated process of finding compromise.
At an even deeper and appreciative level, the reemergence of conflict might be viewed as a repeated opportunity for gaining new insights regarding the work to be done by the organization of community in which both groups operate. As Ken and Mary Gergen (2004) proclaimed, “truth is only found within community.” More specifically, they would suggest that truth is found in trusting relationships: “constructivism favors a replacement of the individual as the source of meaning with the relationship.” Even more to the point, truth is found in dialogue – and disagreement.
Ken and Mary Gergen insist that someone in conflict respect and learn from those with whom they are in conflict: “one is invited into a posture of curiosity and respect for others.” Of greatest importance is the respect we show for the distinctive perspectives (and sources of insight) which people from all backgrounds bring to a conflict. Though collaborative conflict-management is filled with differing and even contentious priorities, perspectives and practices, we can sustain a relationship in the midst of these conflictual differences. It only takes appreciation and the willingness to say: “You might right!”
