Here’s the toughest thing to get about conflict resolution.

This is a true story (features some violence, so be forewarned).

A woman, we’ll call her Toni, works the night shift in a drug detoxification center in Toronto, Ontario.

At 11:00 p.m. one night, a man who’d obviously been taking drugs walks in off the street and demands a room.

She starts to explain that all the rooms had been filled for the night. He throws her to the ground.

“The next thing I knew, he was sitting across my chest holding a knife to my throat and shouting, ‘You bitch, don’t lie to me! You do too have a room!’”

I gave that setup a couple of months ago to a room of 500 people that manage affordable housing complexes.

Then, I asked them, suppose you’re Toni, you’re on the floor, this guy has a knife to your throat. What’s the next thing you say?

All around the room, I got some form of ‘I’ll get you a room” —I’ll call someone for a room, you can stay in the office, you can stay in the closet, something about getting him a room.

Toni said, if she had responded that way, she’s sure she’d be dead.

Here’s how the exchange really went.

Toni: It sounds like you’re really angry and you want to be given a room.

Man: I may be an addict, but by God, I deserve respect. I’m tired of nobody giving me respect. My parents don’t give me respect. I’m gonna get respect!

Toni: Are you fed up, not getting the respect that you want?

She went on that way listening and trying to identify his needs for over a half hour.

That’s amazing. She’ll tell you it’s a skill—in fact, she was studying that skill the day that she got attacked. And she’ll tell you that skill saved her life.

But that’s not the point I’m making about conflict resolution.

The point I’m making, is that as hard as it is to grok, the fight wasn’t about the room.

Of course, on one level it was absolutely about the room. The conflict was sparked off when Toni told the man she didn’t have a room.

But Toni will tell you that if she had focused on the room, or tried to prove she didn’t have one, she’d be dead.

Because, underneath the room, the conflict was about respect. The man wanted respect, and he saw the offer of a room or the refusal of a room as a sign of respect.

If she had said, yeah, you know what, you can sleep in the file room, would that have gotten her out from under the knife? If she had said, let me call Lenny down on 142nd Ave., would that have gotten her out from under the knife?

Likely, no.

You want me to sleep in the file room? You want to pawn me off on Lenny down on 142nd Ave.? That’s not respect!

That wouldn’t have been how Toni meant it, but that’s how he would have heard it.

Conflicts are always about the underlying needs.

They get argued out over the tactics, the bed, the car, the boyfriend, the drinking, the money.

But they’re always about the underlying need—attention, acceptance, being heard, being seen, relief from the pain, or the loneliness, a moment of connection, respect.

Toni listened for over a half hour. Then, the man got off of her and helped her up. And she helped him book a room.

What the man might have killed her for in the first moments after he met her became a gift that he was grateful for a half hour later.

The difference is 30 minutes of seeing him and hearing him and respecting him.

It’s not the room.

I believe a key word here is, early.

I have been married for almost 30 years. My wife and i just recently learned how to fight properly. Its ok, you can laugh. It is a bit humorous….lol. It didn’t really take us that long, but it took a while.

Yes, there is a proper way to have an argument, disagreement or “fight”.

The major key is listening. Yes, listening. God gave you 2 ears and one mouth, listen twice as much as you talk. It solves lots of problems. Resolving issues and conflict early is a lot about proper cultivation and prevention, plowing the ground so to speak.

Listening offers the speaker a chance to be heard AND understood. Listening with intent is key. Listen for the sake of the listener, not for the purpose of responding(now i am talking to me..UGH) Listen with the intention of fully understanding what a person is trying to say, and that is easier said than done. Many people are not use to expressing themselves and often can’t find the right words. They often fear reprisal, didn’t grow up speaking openly, perhaps feel intimidated…the list goes on. So an atmosphere of conversation needs to be cultivated.

Genuine encouragement, recognition and praise for someone doing good, will make people blossom. This allows people to feel comfortable, like they can open up. When someone finally does, the reaction from the listener has to be objective. Listen to a problem or concern with introspection and thought. Be careful to not take things personally, even if perhaps it is. (lay that to the side to try and understand). Repeat back a stated problem or concern from the speaker in an effort to see if you understand what they are trying to say. Many many times a statement will have to go through a few verbal revisions between speaker and listener until you both understand one another. Its like gently lobbing a ping pong ball back and forth. Often times this process alone can resolve a problem. Problems are many times misplaced perceptions, or a pure lack of communication from the start.

In the end, early resolution sounds like this.

Husband says to wife in a calm pleasant voice(day 2 of marriage)….”Please put the cap on the toothpaste from now on, it really bugs me if you don’t.”

Wife responds(hopefully)……”yes dear, Sorry about that. I love you, your so cute when your frustrated”

Problem solved.

Late resolution sounds like this.

Wife yells at husband……”YOU HAVE LEFT THE CAP OFF THE TOOTHPASTE FOR 50 YEARS!!!, IF YOU DO IT ONE MORE TIME, I’M GONNA PUT BENGAY IN YOU ROGAINE!!

Husband…….”Why is my scalp burning??!!!”

-An ounce of prevention-

Conflict resolution is the process of resolving disputes, disagreements, or other types of conflicts between individuals or groups. Effective conflict resolution involves several key steps, including:

1. Identifying the problem: The first step in resolving a conflict is to clearly identify the problem or issue at hand. This requires careful listening and communication to understand the perspectives and needs of all parties involved.

2. Generating possible solutions: Once the problem has been identified, it's important to brainstorm and generate possible solutions. Encourage all parties involved to contribute ideas and work together to find a mutually agreeable solution.

3. Evaluating and selecting a solution: After generating possible solutions, evaluate each one based on its feasibility, effectiveness, and potential impact on all parties involved. Select the solution that is most likely to meet everyone's needs and resolve the conflict.

4. Implementing the solution: Once a solution has been selected, it's important to implement it in a timely manner. Communicate the solution clearly to all parties involved and ensure that everyone understands their roles and responsibilities.

5. Follow-up and evaluation: After the solution has been implemented, it's important to follow up and evaluate its effectiveness. Check in with all parties involved to ensure that the solution is working and make any necessary adjustments as needed.

Effective conflict resolution also requires certain attitudes and behaviors, such as active listening, empathy, and respect for all parties involved. It's important to approach conflict resolution with an open mind and a willingness to compromise and work towards a mutually beneficial solution.

You should know these 10 techniques for productive conflict.

It starts with this first crucial stage:

1. Understand your motivation for disagreeing.

Before you decide to speak up in a meeting, object to a decision, or critique someone’s position, it’s absolutely critical to take a moment to understand why.

Now this might seem obvious. “Because it’s a bad idea!” you might be thinking. “Because they’re not thinking about the downside!” “Because this plan would be better if we consider my ideas.” All of which could totally be true.

But beneath these conscious rationales is always a much deeper intention driving your desire to disagree. These hidden needs and desires underlie every decision we make and every word we choose, so it’s super important that we understand them before we speak.

2. Develop, test, and refine your disagreement.

Before you decide to express a disagreement, take the time to really understand your argument. This might seem self-evident, but it’s remarkable how many people rush into disagreement once they feel justified.

Have a good handle on your why, and be able to articulate those intentions, know the concrete points you want to make and identify the flaws of your perspective, and anticipate the other person’s response to your argument, empathizing with their point of view.

3. Be conscious of your social capital.

When we disagree with someone, we automatically invoke the social capital we’ve built up (our value, utility, influence and connection with other people), because we’re disagreeing with another human being who has her own social capital.

In general, a smart strategy is to build up your social capital before you need it. This means fostering relationships in and around the conflict that are positive, generous, and productive so that when conflicts arise - and they always will - you already have a strong foundation to work with.

4. Present your argument clearly and succinctly.

The point of stage two (preparing) is to deliver your disagreement eloquently and briefly.

I try to keep my opening thoughts short and sweet so we can get to an exchange of ideas as quickly as possible.

In a way, the key to good conflict is to collaborate with the other person on resolving it, which means avoiding the tendency to dominate the exchange.

5. Listen.

The other secret to disagreeing consciously and respectfully is listening.

There’s probably no better tool in the conflict toolkit than truly listening to your opponent. Not only does it ensure that you’re considering all sides, but it signals to the other person that you take them - and their ideas - seriously.

6. Stay aware of your emotional response.

Once you become aware of how conflict gets wired in the brain and body, it becomes much easier to stay kind, open, and empathic, even when you disagree. Just noticing when you get emotional (or shut-down) is half the battle. I consciously work to notice when my feelings creep into a disagreement, so I can separate them out from my position.

If those feelings become unavoidable - which often happens in conflict, especially when it’s important - I’ll literally call them out: “Okay, so I’m getting frustrated right now, and I just want you to know that it’s because I really care about this conversation.” It’s amazing how that kind of transparency can take the edge off of a disagreement.

7. Trust that there are two sides to every conflict.

Remember that part our job is to understand our opponent’s positions (even if we’re totally right on this one!), and that the goal of most disagreements isn’t to “win,” but to navigate the conflict in such a way that creates a better solution, a stronger relationship, and greater overall happiness and peace.

So as you disagree, remember that your perspective is only one of several possible points of view. As difficult as it is, try to understand where your opponent is coming from - and, more important, why. Even if you believe you’re right, this habit will keep you open, empathic, and well-informed, which is exactly what it takes to be successful in conflict.

8. Focus on ideas, not people.

Dealing with ideas means avoiding ad hominem attacks against the other person.

The flipside of this principle is to keep the focus on your ideas, and avoid indulging the desire to bring your emotional responses or personal feelings into the conversation.

You can still be in touch with your feelings as you move through the conversation - there’s no need to suppress or ignore your emotional experience - but remember that the best conflict is about positions, not people; ideas, not feelings.

9. Remain open.

Ironically, to succeed in conflict, you have to be willing to admit you’re wrong.

This can be a tough pill to swallow for some of the best communications, because the better they become at preparing their arguments, the less willing they are to concede that they might be wrong. It takes years to cultivate true openness, and most people never succeed 100% of the time.

If you can navigate conflict with a strong grasp of your argument and a willingness to recognize the other person’s points - and maybe even to change your point of view entirely - then you’ll become a much more effective communicator.

10. Pick the right timing.

Choosing when to disagree is part of the art of conflict. Timing might seem like a detail, but when it comes to highly charged disagreements, it can make or break the outcome. As Terry Goodkind wrote, “Knowing when to fight is just as important as knowing how.”

Decide when it’s time for you to express a disagreement. Sometimes there’s never a “good” moment for conflict, and you’ll have to create one. But even then, being conscious of timing is key.

Bottom line: consider how your disagreement will be perceived and whether it’ll open a necessary and productive conversation. If you do that homework, you generally can’t go wrong.

I'm answering this question for the youngest children. Teach conflict resolution in ten easy steps:

1. Teach the youngest children to identify when there's a conflict. "Look. You want this ball and so do I. We have a conflict about this ball. We both want it."
2. Once there is a conflict which is identified, everything stops. Conflict resolution then begins.
3. The conflict is restated. "Two children are playing with a ball. Both want the ball at the same time. This is a conflict."
4. Stakeholders are asked their opinions about how to resolve the conflict. "How should this conflict be resolved?" is the question each stakeholder is asked.
5. Resolutions suggested are restated, one by one. "A thinks that when two kids want a ball at the same time there should be a coin toss and whoever calls it gets the ball (heads or tails)"... and "B thinks there should be a 'do-over' so both kids replay the last point/part of the game."
6. Solutions are examined. B is asked what s/he thinks of A's solution, and A is asked what s/he thinks of B's solution. Strategy and long term outcomes are weighed.
7. A solution is agreed to. They ask each other "Have we arrived at a mutual agreement about how to resolve that conflict?"
8. BUT, if there is no mutual agreement about how to resolve the conflict, they consider alternative suggestions other than the ones already considered. "Does anyone have any other ideas about how to resolve this?"
9. Both A and B consider whether they still want to resolve this conflict, or if they would like to play. If they want to resolve the conflict, they decide on a random way of solving the conflict (coin toss, or forget about it and start over -- how?)
10. Going through the steps to identify, describe, opine, restate, suggest solutions, and discuss the solutions to arrive at a decision are the steps to conflict resolution that work. Usually the process takes awhile, and kids just want to play. So, after going through these steps a number of times with painstaking care, these steps become second nature and the kids get increasingly good at identifying, describing, opining, restating, and solving conflicts.

The best part of this process is that no adults are needed after the first few go-rounds, once they can internalize the process themselves. Just be sure to teach it painstakingly and carefully until it gets internalized. Then, you're not the referee ever again (or hardly ever!).

No matter who you are, conflict will find you. If you want to win at relationships and life, there are simple principles you need to master.

The best theories of conflict resolution revolve around 10 core steps:

#1: Meet in person.

One rule binds them all: human issues are emotional issues. At a distance, it’s easy to trick ourselves into believing that solutions can be reached via analytic means alone. Without a face in front of us, we often depersonalize the opposition. We see them as flawed thinking-machines to be shamed or corrected, not wounded souls to be won.

When we meet in person, we gain the ability to see things in their human context, to connect in a way that makes root problems obvious, to inject needful empathy, to allow for healthy physical interaction. It’s harder, but always better.

#2: Ground your discussion on a shared plane.

Never start your dialogue with differences. Open with stories. Describe your path. Be candid and personal about what you're hoping to accomplish. Given them space to do the same. Find your common ground, however slim. Then work outward from there, never stepping off it.

#3: Take objections seriously.

Nothing shuts down discussion faster than a haughty or condescending spirit. Until the opposing party believes that you feel their objections, none of your logical responses will matter. Now matter how ridiculous their stance may seem (or be), empathy must lead argument.

#4: Project good motives.

In every conversation, both public and private, reinforce a narrative that clearly and emphatically reaffirms that you believe the other party to be approaching from a position of good will. Frame issues as temporary differences of opinion, honest mistakes, or misaligned incentives. Never allow a frustrated comment that suggests cross purposes or a meaningful separation in values.

#5: Keep history on your side.

Don't make old mistakes. Don't pursue Pyrrhic victories. If you're willing to be useful rather than right, the future will judge you kindly. The hounds always howl in real-time, but they also have a short-attention span. Historians don’t.

#6: Exercise brutal focus.

The main things need to be identified up front, and all further discussion needs to revolve around those main things. Don't allow room for grievances and sidebars to derail your dialogue from the substantial issues. Those can be addressed later.

#7: Look forward first.

Though some level of historical reconciliation might be needful at some point, never make this a condition of moving forward. Allow all parties to reach repentance on their own terms. Begin with what can be done positively to avoid recurrence of the past issues. Deal with blame and reparations later, as necessary.

#8: Don't demand the impossible.

Be pragmatic. Ensure every demand is within reach for the other side, and that it won't play to their audience like a unilateral concession. Always give first. Find your "indispensable minimum" and stop when you reach it. For the remainder of the discussion, work on enriching the relationship. Sow seeds for the future.

#9: If possible, be right; whenever possible, act rightly.

If the process is to fail, let it be because of principle and not personality. Season every statement with grace. Be unfailingly courteous. On a long-enough timeline, good wins. When it does, remain humble.

#10: Be human.

Be intentional about showing your humanity at every stage and in every touch. Be present. Before and after the sessions, talk about your regular lives. Speak in plain language. Be earnest, raw, and practical. Above all else, never phone it in.

Because All the people of a society should strive for peace in their environment.

They should be kind to their family members, neighbors and colleagues.

They must first recognize and control anger in order to manage the misbehavior and unfriendliness of those around them and to control that they live together peacefully.

Ethics and anger management. All the people of a society should learn this.

If people leave a society of greed, racism and selfishness. It will be an ideal society full of peace.

An answer to this question relies on the factors you are considering. Is this to be a lesson plan - what to teach as a lesson to a mixed group of students? If so, how old are the students, is it in response to an incident or is it part of a mental health strategy? A general answer would be to set a number of scenarios and have small, odd number groups, e.g. 3 or 5, discuss them and come up with a method of handling the situation. If you have an odd number, there is always a ”majority” decision which prevents split groups. Have the groups present to the class while the other students take dot point notes. E.g. a student waylays younger students on their way to school and steals anything he wants from them. How could this be dealt with? Topic - Stealing from vulnerable. Dot points based on group solution. Role playing is a method teaching empathy, e.g. having students take one lesson while blind folded to learn what it is like to be vision impaired. Teaching, and reading, texts based on situations which call for empathy often present points of view that students do not take into account. This helps too. And remind them that certain illnesses and/or accidents can render them helpless or impaired at any time.

Absolutely.

In Denmark the Ministry of Education has sponsored education in conflict resolution and peace making through teaching Nonviolent Communication. They have made 5 films on the process on the outcomes.

Please go to the following lnk to learn more:

NVC-film - English

Many countries do not support peace making studies in schools. In England, for instance, the school I went to was created in 1850 to supply military support for the expansion of the British Empire. Boys were trained to become good soldiers, to obey on command without conscience, and not to think for themselves. Britain’s economy is still supported massively by the arms trade, and it is not in their economic interest to have massive breakouts of peace around the world. America, the world’s largest arms manufacturer, has been at war somewhere in the world since the Second World War. Might it be because war supports their arms trade, their economy, and thus the ‘American way of life’?

If so, then their government policy would support conflict in education. We would see children competing and comparing themselves with each other - in exams and in sports - we would be taught this is healthy - and natural. We would see fights and gun problems and bullying. And we would be told there is nothing to be done - this is simply the way it is. Anger would be modeled by adults, parents and teachers, who would raise their voices, and become violent. Children would naturally copy the adults, and learn how to blame, label, diagnose, attack, put-down, hold resentment, get revenge, etc. As adults they would take this behaviour to their families, and pass it on to their children.

And so the culture of violence is passed down from one generation to the next, every time we blame or attack in anger, and most do not know that they are being manipulated to support the multi trillion dollar war industry that deals in arms and drugs. Those who do, say they are doing it for the good of the people. They are talking the financial good. And that may be true. But the price we pay in misery, bereavement, addiction, depression, suicide, and death in wars, is not good for the people.

Under the contract this is an issue for the district and especially the site administration to handle. In reality, most of these cases were handled by the Teacher's Association. As we had no evaluative function, we could deal with teachers without their fearing that anything would end up in their personnel files.

I have been retired long enough that I can admit that I approached the two adults the same way I would approach two of my students who were having a clash. If instruction were being damaged, then I usually went to the district. For most of my time, we had no human resources office, and even when we did, I ignored it and went directly to the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel. I would just call him and say, "Hey, Jim, when's the earliest we can meet with a couple of teachers at Ford Street School." He knew what that meant. We would usually ride over together and talk about the problem on the way. We usually tried the two old crabby uncles approach. You two are adults, you both have degrees, work it out. We do not want to come out again. Sometimes I played the incredulous annoyed one and Jim played the one who kept asking question because he just couldn't figure out what was going on.

We often gave instruction. We never gave written directives, those were a contract matter and ended up as a record. No we just gave advice, sometimes strongly worded. Here is what you do, and here is what you do. Got it? No problems? Good, we don't want your principal to have to deal with this.

In only one case did we finally have to suggest a transfer. The contract was quite explicit on involuntary transfers, and no one ever wanted to cause one especially for non-physical reasons. E.g. A school being reconfigured as to grade level or a temporary transfer for construction. In this ne case, we were lucky that one of the teachers wanted a transfer, and so the district obliged.

To be honest with you, we two handled teacher-principal disputes in much the same way although in those cases, Jim usually called me. "Hey, Richard, can you come out with me to Chevrolet School Wednesday morning? We got a teacher and a principal at odds. Damn, if they were on my team they'd be running bleachers ever day for a week, but they're adults, so, come on out with me."

The path to all conflict resolution goes something like this.

Talk to the individual or group you have an issue with, first. No one else. Make sure its a real issue, not a personal problem. If its a minor they need to have their parent or guardian involved obviously.

Make all effort to come to a mutual resolution and understanding. Many times conflict is a true misunderstanding of another person and there intention. Not always, but its common.

If it does not work out the first time, try again with a mediator. Someone who has no agenda.

Things can take time, so even if its slow, keep trying diplomacy and communication. This is a tried and true method.

There are many phrases , we have heard describing the conflicting situations explicitly. To be or not to be

To eat the cake and have it too

To sit on the fence

To hang on tenter hooks

and many more which clearly descibe the conflicts we face in our day to day life. There are many paradoxical moments, many conflicting situations in life , that mammoth moment : that decisive moment and you choose one path leaving the other, one side leaving the other. Either you eat the cake or leave it untouched; leap on one final side of the fence and no longer remain hanging forever on the tenter hooks .

But how do you actually resolve the conflict? Is it a conscious, deliberate act or is it just a spontaneous , instant decision based on that gut feeling to tread on one path , one turn or bend that you choose out of the two options that you have. The conflicts arise in day to day situations which do not normally have any serious repurcussions and such conflicts can be solved one way or the other following your instincts and you immediately take decisions spontaneously . For example while shopping you come across such moments and decide on one colour of the dress than other .

But the mega conflicts of your life can put you in complex situations and your life , your career is hugely put at stake . Such conflicts have to be considered, reconsidered and thought over again and again because your entire life, your success in personal and professional front depends upon the choices you would make . These major conflicts are related to your career, your life partener, or other such important areas. The choice of your life partener or the career you pursue decides the course of your life. So consider all prospects and consequences, measure all options available, and weigh all alternatives. After that when you decide upon option B and not A , or A not B , just indulge in a bit of introspection to discover whether it makes you happy and content . Sometimes you make a particular choice on an impulse and your gut feeling tells you to go ahead with something and later on you feel ahhh!!! That was a good choice indeed . But such instances should not be taken as an inspiration. There are increased chances of failure and disappointment where you take decisions rashly and impulsively. Only once in a while you get lucky . So a wise and worldly advice would be to make a deliberate and intentional choice and then leave the consequences on Lady Luck. Luck would still be an important factor whether the choice is deliberate or impulsive. Though in life matters , there are no fixed strategies to rise above the conflict but the aforesaid advice can atleast help you out.

Greetings,

No.

Conflict resolution is a life skill that cannot be taught in a single elective course.

My mentor made conflict resolution a cornerstone of her school culture norms.

Supplying students with tools to deescalate interpersonal problems became a part of our middle school’s culture, and kids who were identified as “natural helpers” were invited to be trained to mediate with their peers.

This initiative worked out very well in that an adult was not always required to be part of the human interactions at the point of friction.

Kids were able to develop their capacity to resolve problems in a meaningful way.

Curriculum directors often respond to a perceived need by expensively implementing classes that intend to address an identifiable problem, but the outcomes are uneven at best.

While there is no doubt that students would benefit from acquiring conflict resolution skills, making that skill part of the school’s over-arching culture and away from a contrived elective would be far more effective.

Best wishes for every success.

Sincerely,

AJG.

1. First find out WHAT is the ISSUE- a) was there any significant initial actions? b) what reactions were taken? Next towards the side of the aggressor, *what is it they want?, *what is it they need? and *what is it that they current have? and same for the other side of this dispute.
2. Next determine the HISTORY of these two or how ever many nations are involved- being neutral means, having the strength to understand violence but compassion as to not glorify any devastating victories or amazing displays of trained personnel. let’s not forget for every great victory someone’s family suffered and will suffer for ever as they’re Father,Mother,Brother,Sister,Son or Daughter, they will never get to see again. Instead they’ll have to witness exaggerated celebratory cheers of others, laughing and reliving when they had killed those that were taken from your life. (if there is a root, we need to dig to the true source, no-more bandaids cosmetically covering the wounds, only to have it grow and eventually spread and infect others)

So now you’ve determined,

1. The issue- what they’re currently mad about

2. The history- what they’re known or presumed emotional roots are, enhancing and building the magnitude of their current emotions within.

Next, with each leader determine what is it they really want from the other and what current physical, actions have actually taken place now and the actual physical retaliation now by any from that.

Now comes NEGOTIATION, meaning you the negotiator need to find a COMMON-BOND a common emotion that backs them up, rather humanizes them from only seeing the other as a monster, or a blood thirsty enemy with the kill or be killed mentality. Instead you’ll neutrally have them assume the others stance so as they can have some respect for the combative reaction of the other thus changing that unreasonable murderous monster back into that overly passionate human being that will die to protect those that chose him as there leader, respectfully just as they themselves would.

Lastly COMPROMISE - in a thriving, surviving society you’ll find in some aspects you’ve an abundance sometimes even a stock pile (more then you need) however in other areas of your continued survival or growth there’s a scarcity or none (a true need for). Now in other outside families, societies, nations, countries, worlds or even galaxies, they may have an abundance of those things that you’ve in your current society have a scarcity of and vise versa. This is we’re compromise is most important for our ultimate survival. In modern times its unexceptable to just bully and overpower another by taking with force that which you want (eventually that will breed a vengeful retaliation, and regardless of its unquestionable righteousness, that will mark the end of mankind).

1. Whats the ISSUE
2. What’s the HISTORY
3. NEGOTIATE through a COMMON BOND
4. COMPROMISE allowing for a peaceful future

“Have schools in your area changed their curriculum or activities to address THE conflict?” (emphasis mine)

You live somewhere in Europe. This question came to me (admittedly not an A2A, but a “questions for you” thing) in the US. Do you seriously believe there is only a single conflict involving schools in all of the world? Please - which conflict are you actually asking about? Because if you let us know, you can actually get some reasoned responses.

Otherwise I’m going to tell you that the most recent conflice in my local schools that has made the news and social media is the need to shift activities schedules due to bus route changes. Somehow I don’t think that’s what you’re asking about.

*NOT FOR SHARING IN MONETIZED SPACES*

email sez: “As someone who answered questions about Skills before, can you help Vanessa Reddhi? Vanessa Reddhi: Vanessa Reddhi wants an answer to: What is the role of problem solving skills in managing conflict at school?”

to make sure the

right

problems get

solved the

right

way.

You

‘re Welcome, and

of course.

It depends upon your definition of conflict.

If you mean an intellectual disagreement, let them talk it out. Others in the class could support one or the other.

If you mean a physical conflict, that is another story. Fighting should not tolerated in the classroom (or in the school at all). If an altercation should break out in the classroom, tell the students to stop immediately. If they don't, the teacher should call the person in the school who is in charge of discipline--for example, the dean of students, assistant principal--and ask them to come to the classroom immediately. Keep the other students away from the combatants.

Conflict is an inevitable part of human relationships. It can arise in various forms, ranging from minor disagreements to more complex disputes. When handled poorly, conflict can have negative consequences and cause irreparable damage to relationships. Therefore, it is essential to have a well-defined approach to conflict resolution. In this article, we will discuss how to navigate conflict in a way that promotes understanding and resolution.

More

Peter, the FIRST step toward conflict resolution is “CALM LISTENING!” The SECOND step toward conflict resolution is CALM LISTENING” of “the differances” (Jacques Derrida) between the two parties’ conceptual meaningful ideas that are causing conflict. These conceptual meaningful ideas are mentally operational occurring causing behavioral conflict. Conceptual abstract ideas are causing behaviorally manifested conflict. Because there is behavioral conflict occurring it is important to discover why such behavioral conflict is occurring. It is mentally operational conscious awareness of both parties conceptual abstract ideas that are causing behavioral conflict. Unless both parties address the “differances” between each parties conceptual ideas causing behavioral conflict, there will NOT occur resolution toward avoidance of behavioral conflict. The THIRD step toward conflict resolution is dialectical conversation. Dialectical conversation demands intellectual mental operational conscious awareness of the recognition and the realization of the “differances” between the conceptual abstract ideas of both parties in conflict with each other toward resolution of these conflicting conceptual ideas of thought toward FOURTH conceptual idea conflict resolution. Each party holds different conflicting ideas. These conflicting ideas might be manifested as one party who holds traditional value ideas, whereas, the other party holds more progressive liberal-minded ideas. How does one resolve such differances? Only by entering into dialectical logical reasonable discussion intellectually focused toward logical reasonable resolution of conflicting prejudices, perceptions, and opinions. Prejudices, perceptions, and opinions are personally individualized suppositions and assumptions which need to be mentally operationally consciously aware erased from Mind replaced by mental operational functioning logical reasonable thought bringing forth intellectual resolution. What is intellectual resolution? Intellectual thought holds no quality of prejudice, perception, or opinion. Intellectual thought holds cognitive awareness. What is cognitive awareness? Cognitive awareness exists when conscious aware thought “thinks” the Minds Innate Absolute Necessary Everlasting Principles that exist absolutely, necessarily, everlastingly as those principles that reasonably guide Human behaviors, such as, reason, logic, ethics, morality, goodness, virtue, value, kindness, love, mindfulness, integrity, wisdom. Mind thinking these absolute, everlasting, necessary principles innately known guides Human earthly experiences away from mere prejudices, mere perceptions and opinions of life’s mere sense experiences toward higher intellectual reasonable thought as the Fifth step.

Attaching metrics to any process (i.e. keeping score) tends to make the process subservient to the metric, artificially encouraging or discouraging behaviors that would otherwise be fairly predictable from the character and personality of the people or organizations involved. Thus, whether a metric helps or hurts depends on how the metric is calculated and how it changes the behaviors of the parties involved. In my long experience with the use of metrics in a corporate setting, they most often have serious adverse side effects - the worst of which is encouraging keeping two sets of books - one to privately track the truth and one to maximize the metric score for public benefit. This is followed closely by simply ignoring the truth in favor of believing the falsely maximized metric, creating an environment where leaders make bad decisions based on fudged data from their subordinates.

This is something they are learning every time they don’t get their own way, each time a sibling takes a toy from them and when they are fighting with siblings.

Conflict resolution takes practice and needs to have the child leading the learning. As a caregiver you can support this learning by helping your child do this independently.

If a child is crying for a truck that is being used, it might be possible for the caregiver to say, “Hmm? I wonder if there are any other vehicles you could use while your waiting?”

If two children are arguing about what game they are going to play a caregiver might say, “Both of those games sound amazing. I wonder how you could decide which one to play first?”

When a child has their block tower knocked over you might ask your child, “would you like (child’s name who broke the tower) to help you remake your tower or would you like me to help you?”

If two children are holding the same toy, YOU hold the toy and ask the kids, “I see you are both holding the same toy. I’m wondering what we are going to do?” Allow the children to come up with ideas. Sometimes one child walks away because they have lost interest.

Giving your children opportunities to problem solve without the caregiver providing all the answers allows the children to be better at independent conflict resolution.

They already are. It’s been a work in progress for some time now.

“critical race theory” is the leading edge of this effort. It says all white people are at fault for all the bad things that happen to black people.

If it’s a black kid killed another black kid in a black gang shootout, it’s Whitey’s fault.

No kidding.

They call it “anti-racism racism.”

The definition of that is, To defeat racism, become racist towards white people.

No kidding.

It calls, especially, for white people to lead the way in being racist towards white people. It also makes a point of noting… The white people who lead the anti-racism racism way are still evil because they are white.

But they can attempt to atone, much as possible, by giving their money and property to black people while maintaining a total attitude of racism towards white people.

If you fall for this hustle, you deserve to, you evil q-tip person. You mayonnaise monster.

A professor from rutgers — she’s a fat black woman — aired a video in which she says she would like to wipe every white person off the face of the earth.

That used to be called Genocide.

Today, in crt circles, it’s Doctrine.