Conflict, the ungovernable force, has been
responsible for a number of social problems such as poverty, war, and death.
Every society tries to avoid conflict because it is undesirable. On the other
hand, conflict is perceived as a bonding force in social relationships. It’s no
lie Conflict is inherent in all societies. Differences in interest and
opinion between groups are natural, and the means of expressing and managing
such differences determine whether conflicts manifest themselves in primarily
non-violent or violent ways. However,
the truth of the matter is that conflict can be either a positive or negative
force - therefore not all conflict needs to be resolved. The key is to
understand the difference.
Conflicts in Zambia have existed
since time in memorial some have been constructive and some have been very
destructive. This is in respect to the political climate in Zambia. Conflicts
have seen the introduction of multiparty state system, increased security and
in other instances deaths and injuries of people. Daily and yearly conflicts
will always be experienced and we cannot stop that phenomenon. However,
understanding conflict is essential in order to channel it to yield positive
results and also to help us understand our societal differences from individual
to national level.
The "bad" conflict
that everyone knows and loathes is known by conflict management professionals
as "catabolic" conflict. This type of conflict is usually characterized
by chronic and unresolved issues of confusion, role identity, communication,
imbalances of powers and duties, perceived injustice issues, a history of
improperly handled disputes, exclusion, and the list goes on.
Contrariwise, "good"
conflict, which is more professionally known as "anabolic" conflict,
is rarely talked about - even in professional circles. Anabolic conflict is characterized
by open discourse, honesty, investigation and introspection of key processes
and players, acceptance of diverse ideas, and collaboration (which we rarely see
in our societies).
The problem with conflict is
that the two types run counter-intuitive to our inherent emotional state as
human beings. Anabolic conflict is in your face and open. Catabolic conflict,
by contrast, is very subtle and may take a long time to grow and show itself.
Therefore, human nature is to quash the conflict that is most apparent and
adjust to the subtle conflict that no one can quite put their finger upon. So,
how can one identify what is good and what is bad?
Because anabolic conflict is so
apparent, it is critical to make sure that we understand its inherent nature
best. By nature, anabolic conflict happens when there is an open and honest
questioning of procedures. It is the type of conflict that begs for constant
innovation and collaboration based in open discourse. For such conflict to work
best it means that leaders, key workers, and other stakeholders have to be open
to change and not take commentary to heart. This may sound easy to do but in
practice it can be very hard to keep one's emotions in check when your ideas,
your work, your investment in a group, etc. are called into question or open
discussion for inspection.
Catabolic conflict is usually
the product of previous anabolic conflict opportunities being previously
stifled or never seized. It may be where a worker asks a supervisor a question
only to be dismissed, admonished, or publicly chastised for being
"insubordinate." It can also happen when communication is so broken
down that no one knows what the other does or even what they may need to best
do their job. Input is usually never asked or comes at the fear of punishment.
It doesn't matter whether it is
in a domestic setting, a club or civic group, a church or synagogue, a
non-profit, a government agency, or a for-profit business - conflict of both
types will routinely pop-up. What makes a Fortune 500 company different from
their competitors, a mega-church growing while others are dying, and a
phenomenal relationship different from a heart-wrenching nightmare, a blossoming
and stable political party favoured by many from one that is loathed and not
respected often hinges upon which type of conflict you feed and which one you
try to extinguish.
Whenever you are in conflict with someone
there is one factor that can make a difference
between damaging your relationship
or deepening it, that factor is
ATTITUDE
In what ways do you think people can use conflict for the betterment of their societies??
No comments:
Post a Comment