Part1 Qn 1

What are conflict intelligence and systemic wisdom?

Conflict intelligence is the ability to have knowledge, skills, and self-awareness that we can apply in resolving any form of conflict that we are faced with (“Conflict Intelligence”, 2017). It is a new form of innovation in conflict resolution that combines skills from different fields such as emotional intelligence, meditation, and mindfulness. On the other hand, systemic wisdom implies the effective use of intelligence while dealing with various systems and it largely helps in understanding systems as a whole. During the time of finding out the best solutions to a given problem, these are the main contributors to finding a solution.

How do they challenge and advance research and practice on conflict beyond Getting to Yes (integrative, win-win approaches)?

Conflict intelligence and systemic wisdom are mainly used in advancing researchers as they help in understanding any given systems. Systemic wisdom helps in analyzing systems, viewing them from a larger picture and anticipating future crises (Hof & rarr, 2017). This idea of future projection is essential in advancing more research in line with what it is expected in future. Conflict intelligence enhances self-awareness and creative resolution during handling of the crisis. This is one model that normally simple in nature but it has a powerful way of making someone connect and relate to their problem-solving skill. It is through intelligence that one is able to consciously link with and manage conflicts through developing a collaborative understanding of this problem. Any person who possesses this intelligence always has increased insight and more skills.

Having the systematic wisdom and conflict intelligence requires that somebody is very skilled and knows what to at the right time. For instance, in case of conflict, issues to do with gender will have to be put on the table.  The people involved will have to consider gender sensitivity while carrying out their conflict resolution exercise (Kolb & Coolidge, 1988). They will have to learn how to deal with the feminists with the people and those who are antifeminists.

For any work to be done perfectly in an organization, it requires a lot of wisdom. It is from the wisdom that one is able to strike a balance between where to lay more focus when working on the current tasks and what to put in line as part of the long-term priority (Hof & rarr, 2017). Wisdom helps one to look at his work in a bigger picture and figure the step of action that will deliver incredible results.  There is always that wisdom within the system that generates transformative ideas that improve the enterprise.

There are so many activities involved when dealing with the systemic wisdom.   The major thing is that the system has got a wide range of perspectives that are put into play when trying to figure out the main motivating factor in a given research or work being done (Hof & rarr, 2017). It is worth noting that the system recognizes given ineptness relatively for the resultant plans.  This is part of the reason the systemic wisdom is able to advance more work that is done on research.

There are numerous forms of injustice that can be carried out in a social set up. These include the six main injustices that were found out from groups of people who were oppressed and their types of oppression that they had encountered. Distributive injustice is the type of injustice that is usually concerned with that thing that provoked that feeling oppression. On the other hand, procedural justice deals with unfair treatment in making and implementing the decisions that eventually determines the outcome. Another form of oppression is that feeling of a sense of injustice. The factors must be put in place to determine what really happened (Deutsch, 1986). These kinds of oppression that are experienced daily on the roads and they may lead to conflicts from time.

What limitations are inherent to the CIQ & SW approaches?

In trying to carry out various researches about conflicts in various places, there are a number of approaches that are normally used such as the CIQ and the SW approaches. However, each of these approaches usually has their own kinds of limitation that hinder their full utilization. Using the CIQ as one of the measures, which is the Community Integration Questionnaire, is one of the objective measures that is used in the assessment of the elements of participation. However, some of its limitation includes the fact that it does not consider individual preferences and personal choices.  It also only measures satisfaction with how far then individuals participate. In this CIQ, for instance, the final score reflects and indicates the frequency of participation and finishing the activities separately.

There are some approaches that normally widens up the scope formalisms of presenting knowledge which is applied in the SW while others are based on probability. The expressive SW has the difficulty in engineering the knowledge bases as one of its most inherent challenges when dealing with some of the research information. There numerous ways that have been forwarded to tackle this SW approach. This is in trying to working on circumventing the various challenges that are normally attached to using this approach and finding the next best solution to using this approach.

 

 

Part 1 Qn 3

Provide a critique of the Constructive Multicultural Conflict model of Coleman, Coon, Kim,

Chung, Bass, Regan, & Anderson (2017).

Constructive multicultural conflict

Every day, in a culturally set up community at one time or another they have conflicts, either individually or as a group. It is not always that conflicts will be destructive but we can have constructive conflicts to the multicultural. Culture is usually very dynamic and then it is always changing its patterns with being, behaving, knowing and even making sense in a given group of people.  Culture relates to multifaceted aspects of things which could include religion, race, ethnicity, generation, language, history and socioeconomic status (LeBaron, 2014). For instance, when there are a harmony and peaceful coexistence, then these people will be regarded as to have a culture of peace Therefore, culture encompasses several things at the same time.

People living together as community

According to the social interdependence theory, different groups of people or individuals can live together interdependently (Johnson & Johnson, 2011). They form a culture where they live together cooperatively and competitively. In such a set, they are likely to have cases of conflicts that are related to their cultural background. The peaceful coexistence of various communities together is normally based on the cultural tightness-looseness that exists among them (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006). Their social fabric is conjoined together to enhance peaceful coexistence. Whenever these communities sit together peacefully, it results in economic trend (Diesing, 1962). The only way to measure this economic trend is through the progress in the lives of the people.

Conflict reconciliation

Whenever there two or more parties that are engaging in a fight, there must be a way of finding a solution to the conflicts reclaim peace.  Involved parties come and put their differences aside and decide to move on with their lives. In some places, power is gotten or negotiated in groups (Coleman & Voronov, 2003). Thus the power in groups enhances management of conflicts. After the war has ceased, the most affected people are usually children who comprise the future generation (Wessells & Monteiro.2001). Therefore, more attention needs to be more emphasis laid on assisting these children to recover from war stress.

Methods of dealing a conflict

A conflict can be resolved in three main ways which include compromise, domination, and integration. Compromise involves having the conflicting parties to tone down their interests and give up some of their stands to reach an agreement so that peace can prevail.. The conflicts can also be resolved through the formulation of policies (Christie & Noor, 2012). This was one of the methods that were used in Malaysia quell conflicts between the Malaysian communities and it was very effective.

Multicultural approaches

Multicultural organization changes the approach that takes organizational cultures around diversity and discrimination as attractors. The level of cultural resolution has advanced from the way it was back in the early 1950s (Roy, Burdick & Kriesberg, 2010). Right now it is more expanded than the traditional (CR). The constructive multicultural attractors are more inclusive kinds of definition of in-group that shares a number of common goals and objectives.  In order to realize multicultural relations, significant efforts need to be put into interrupting and dismantling those attractor’s patterns that are already in place for more destructive multicultural relations.

Again, there needs to be establishment and promotion of alternative attractor’s patterns for more constructive multicultural relations.  The organizational cultures of diversity and discrimination can be very well as attractor dynamism in very complicated nonlinear systems (Roy, Burdick & Kriesberg, 2010).  The strength of both the constructive and destructive attractors for multicultural dynamism is normally affected by the feedback dynamism gotten by the organization.

How does it compare to cross-cultural CR models.

Cross-cultural studies

Cross culture has been variedly applied in various fields and in different phenomena such as in the field of science, but there is one major underlying major thing that could introduce a paradigm shift in the cross-cultural organizational researchers. More perspectives need to be introduced in view the nature of culture which is necessary to understand where they are coming from the base of their behavior (Fry & Miklikowska, 2012). Widening of the scope of the perspective of the cross-cultural definition offers liberty not to leave out anyone who wishes to define it differently.

It is possible for people who hail from different cultural background to engage in positive discussion and come up with something constructive despite their cultural backgrounds (Tjosvold, Leung & Johnson, 2000). Corporative conflicts usually form a good platform for people from cultural backgrounds to engage with each other and develop a good relationship.

Strength

Research on cross cultural, intergroup and multicultural conflict over decades indicates that there are very many psycho-social cultural dynamics of feedback that sum up to have a contribution towards the strength of a more constructive or more destructive multicultural relations (Anderson, 2017). The multicultural model and the cross cultural are unique differently they all have got various strength. In an organization that is made up of a variety of working together, it normally has numerous attractors within its system for multicultural relations. This multicultural nature of the organization gives it its potential to have qualitatively social relations patterns that exist within the organization’s system. The multicultural conflict model In both the multicultural and cross-culture, they are both found on the basis of great values. The main pillars of cross culture and multicultural is that in both they advocate for core values that enable the well being of an individual or a given group of people.

 

Weaknesses

They all have weaknesses in that they rely on underdeveloped forms of theories which do not offer substantial background of their formation. Most of theories that relied on by this model do not have a solid background information that can substantiate their claims. They are also based on skewed and limited assumptions that inappropriately define terms such as ethnicity, race and minority (Leong & Gupta, 2008). Holding on a lot of assumptions makes the multicultural approach to seem more theoretical than it can be practically achieved. Furthermore, they do not adequately address the issues cultural diversity and individuals hence making them ambiguous.

It is also identified that the situational cues that result from multicultural conflicts can result in minority group members to be more susceptible to social identity threats. Such kind of threats makes their lives unbearable since they are always living in fear. Again, since multicultural interactions normally occur in coveted resources such as promotions and better pay it tends to intensify the level of intergroup conflicts. Having lots of conflicts is normally detrimental to existence of peace thus leading to a society that leaves and the full threat of insecurity.

Part 2 Qn2

Discuss the idea of sustainable peace.

Sustainable peace

Peace is an aspect of life that makes it worth living and thus for life to continue having value, pace must also be upheld unrelentingly.  For there to be a global peace, it all starts with an individual being at peace with himself and the love spreads to the rest of the world (Xu, et al 2006). There is no standard way of defining. However, the common the common thing that can be used to define all these forms of peace as peace is the absence of destructive tension, conflict or violence and with the presence of harmony and well being. Even though most of the time, peace is misconstrued as to be the absence of war, this is not usually the case. There could be nonviolent resistance which negative peace like the women in Liberia and Ivory Coast (Disney & Gbowee, 2012). For there to be peace there needs to be no form of disgruntlement.

To come up with a sustainable peace, there need to be people negotiating. However, finding the solution highly depends on the power of the negotiator and the level of conflict(Fragale,2005)It involves the high probability of engaging dialogue an cooperation to promote justice and the well-being that governs the social organization and relationship in life.  It, therefore, can be referred to as the state when a given environment enjoys a certain form of tranquility with no any form disturbance.

What do we and don’t we know about?

The whole idea of sustainable peace comes in the case the where there are conflicting part and they are seeking to reach a ceasefire. Sustainable peace requires that the conflicting parties do not only lay down their weapons in the sign of surrendering war but also they need to find a long-lasting solution of reconciliation (Deutsch & Coleman, 2015).  This reconciliation needs to be enduring since it sustained by society-wide network mechanisms and relationships that enhance justice addresses the main cause of the existing enmity before they can regenerate again into volatile tensions.

Even thought much is talked about sustainable peace, there are a number of things that are little know that are concerns sustainable (Lie,  Binningsbø & Gates, 2007). Sustainable peace is always dependent on type of regime and cannot be established similarly in different societies. The way of implementing sustainable peace in a dichromatic society is different from that of a nondemocratic society. Again, what is little known is that

 

Why it is important to approach it across disciplines.

Peace building normally has got a multifaceted character and thus it involves various actors in order to achieve sustainable peace (Krampe, 2016).  Having many actors that shape sustainable makes it necessary that it is taken across all disciplines in order to bring all the stakeholders in peace building on board. The many disciplines assists in understanding the various aspects of peace building hence making it easier coming up with sustainable peace.

Furthermore, various disciplines give different learning materials that are antidote to violence and any form of armed conflict. The learning in these disciplines lays emphasis and promotes having a just and all inclusive society which is a recipe for longevity in peace hence sustainable peace (Krampe, 2016). It  also enhances everyone’s participation in civic or citizen participation in development of sustainable.

Sustainable peace must be approached by from the perspective of dynamic processes which includes the development and maintenance of the attractors for social relations (Fry & Miklikowska, 2012). There are case studies that demonstrate that indeed it is possible to transition from a state of having a constant war to a state of calmness and full of peace. There is in itself is a full demonstration of the efficacy of using the peace strategies.

The most important thing about peace is that it can lead to a harmonious coexistence of a given group or individuals and make them enjoy life.  A group, in this case, is that gathering of more than one person coming together with a common agenda (Deutsch, Marcus & Brazaitis, 2012). They maybe are having common goals, set of values and they interact with each other.  By just being together, it is not enough to determine if they have common characteristics or have a distinguishable entity that is different from others or if they have got common interest. It is only after an interaction that they can tell their common interests. It is easier for people who have a common interest and common goal to live peacefully compared to those who have diverse interests in life. Whenever there is conflict among a given group of people, it is usually because they differ on a number of thing s. Thus the only way to create peaceful coexistence and sustainable peace is by creating and making them converge on a given common agenda, interest or common goal.

Finding a solution to a conflict to enhance peace

As a way of creating peace, there must be some form of conflict resolution. There are various things to consider in creating sustainable peace. One needs to know and understand the type of conflict that they are involved in (Fry & Miklikowska, 2012). Some of the conflicts are usually a win-lose in nature whereby in order for one to win they have to give away something. Again, not all conflicts are negative. It is the nature of conflicts to cause anxiety and be destructive. However, most of the conflicts present people with the opportunity to solve problems and bring out the necessary changes.   Furthermore, during the creation of peace, it is important for someone to corporate with the team trying to find an amicable solution.

Making sustainable peace also requires that the involved people are able to see the invisible. During conflicts, people tend to miss out so many things that make it hard resolve conflicts and hence there is a need for involved parties to see beyond the conflict (Faure, 1995). A bottom-up approach should be used so that a focus is laid from a bigger picture to that picture on the real ground. Working from the lower end of the project while circumventing global issues normally helps in identifying and initiating new greater ideas of finding the final solution. This approach is normally good at saving time and coming up with practical solutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Anicich, E. M., Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27(1), 123-140.

Christie, D. J., & Noor, N. M. (2012). Sustaining peace through psychologically informed policies: The geohistorical context of Malaysia. In Psychological components of sustainable peace (pp. 153-175). Springer New York.

Coleman, P. T. (2012). Constructive conflict resolution and sustainable peace. In Psychological components of sustainable peace (pp. 55-84). Springer New York.

Coleman, P. T., & Voronov, M. (2003). Power in groups and organizations. International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working, 229-254.

Coleman, P. T., Coon, D., Kim, R., Chung, C., Bass, R., Regan, B., & Anderson, R. (2017). Promoting Constructive Multicultural Attractors: Fostering Unity and Fairness From Diversity and Conflict. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 180-211.

Conflict Intelligence. (2017). Fightingfair.com.au. Retrieved 19 December 2017, from http://fightingfair.com.au/conflict-intelligence/

Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(3), 493.

Curhan, J. R., Neale, M. A., Ross, L., & Rosencranz-Engelmann, J. (2008). Relational accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 192-205.

Deutsch, M. (1986). Cooperation, conflict, and justice. In Justice in social relations (pp. 3-18). Springer US.

Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. T. (2015). Psychological components of sustainable peace: an introduction. In Morton Deutsch: Major Texts on Peace Psychology (pp. 105-117). Springer, Cham.

Deutsch, M., Marcus, E. C., & Brazaitis, S. (2012). A framework for thinking about developing a global community. In Psychological components of sustainable peace (pp. 299-324). Springer New York.

Diesing, P. (1962). Reason in society. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 128.

Disney, A., & Gbowee, L. (2012). Gender and sustainable peace. In Psychological components of sustainable peace (pp. 197-203). Springer New York.

Faure, G. O. (1995). Conflict formulation: Going beyond culture-bound views of conflict.

Fine, M. (2001). The Impact of College in a Maximum Security Prison for Women: Effects on Women, Prison Environment, Reincarceration and Post-Release Outcomes. NY: City University of New York.

Fry, D. P., & Miklikowska, M. (2012). Culture of peace. In Psychological components of sustainable peace (pp. 227-243). Springer New York.

Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions.

Gaucher, D., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Difficulties awakening the sense of injustice and overcoming oppression: On the soporific effects of system justification. In Conflict, interdependence, and justice (pp. 227-246). Springer New York.

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225.

Hof, S., & →, V. (2017). Systemic wisdom versus statistic evidence. CSL4D. Retrieved 19 December 2017, from https://csl4d.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/wisdom-versus-evidence/

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2011). Intellectual legacy: Cooperation and competition. In Conflict, interdependence, and justice (pp. 41-63). Springer New York.

Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Fragale, A. R. (2005). Power dynamics in negotiation. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 799-822.

Kolb, D. M., & Coolidge, G. G. (1988). Her place at the table: A consideration of gender issues in negotiation. Harvard Law School.

Krampe, F. (2016). Building Sustainable Peace: Understanding the Linkages between Social, Political, and Ecological Processes in Post-War Countries (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University).

LeBaron, M. (2014). The alchemy of change: Cultural fluency in conflict resolution. Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, 581-603.

Leong, F. T., & Gupta, A. (2008). Theories in cross-cultural contexts. International handbook of career guidance, 227-245.

Lie, T. G., Binningsbø, H. M., & Gates, S. (2007). Post-conflict justice and sustainable peace.

Nowak, A., Gelfand, M. J., Borkowski, W., Cohen, D., & Hernandez, I. (2016). The evolutionary basis of honor cultures. Psychological science, 27(1), 12-24.

Rapoport, A. (Ed.). (2012). Game theory as a theory of conflict resolution (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media.

Roy, B., Burdick, J., & Kriesberg, L. (2010). A conversation between conflict resolution and social movement scholars. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27(4), 347-368.

Stoudt, B. G., Fox, M., & Fine, M. (2011). Awakening injustice in a new century. In Conflict, interdependence, and justice (pp. 165-191). Springer New York.

Tjosvold, D., Leung, K., & Johnson, D. W. (2000). Cooperative and competitive conflict in China.

Wessells, M., & Monteiro, C. (2001). Psychosocial interventions and post-war reconstruction in Angola: Interweaving Western and traditional approaches. Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century, 262-275.

 

 

This entry was posted on January 2, 2018 at 2:31 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.