Let me accommodate you at my expense!

Throughout the semester I have really honed in on what conflict is, how to identify it, and how to possibly solve it. Along with learning about conflict, I have been able to apply concepts learned in class to my own life and my own conflict style. In class we learned that there are many different conflict styles including ones such as competition, compromising, and accommodating.

As a person who is faced with conflict on a daily basis, I have had plenty of experiences and chances to explore my own conflict style. I really try to maintain any peace within a situation when I have the opportunity to do so, and because of this I tend to follow an accommodating conflict style. This type of style focuses on maintaining the harmony and agreeing with the other side. I am a firm believer compromising and finding a resolution that will work for both sides thus making both parties happy, however I am more of an accommodating person because I tend to give the other side more, and will ultimately jeopardize a little bit of my own happiness to see the other side reach what they want.

Ending My Conflicts... Quickly.

Conflicts ultimately come to end. For me, my own conflicts tend to end in a similar way. I’m not a person who likes to drag out arguments and will do whatever I can to quickly resolve any issues currently facing me. I firmly believe that the reason my conflicts end early is due to the fact that I hardly feel like using the needed energy to fight over something that can usually be easily solved.

In the world around me, conflicts seem to both follow my own style of using quick resolutions, yet other conflicts are seen as dragging on for years. In a personal belief I feel like the size of the conflict plays an immense role. For example, a quick resolution is much more achievable in an interpersonal setting versus a quick resolution in a conflict between countries (war/politics). These large-scale conflicts usually take a much longer and detailed resolution.

My Conflict Style: Hybrid

According to the quiz we took in class, my own personal conflict style is collaboration, followed very closely by accommodation. The only style I scored especially low on is dominating. Reflecting on these results and thinking about my personal conflict experiences, I think that my conflict style varies significantly based on the type of conflict, the context, and the other parties. I would agree that I typically try to be assertive but also cooperative in conflict. I think it is important to meet everyone’s needs while still advocating for my own, and preserve relationships through sustainable solutions. If I am in a hurry or a compromise is obvious and seems fair to everyone, I will sometimes compromise instead of collaborating. I am accommodating in that I try to think of the good of the group and the others involved and I really do think emotions have an important role to play. I do find conflict stressful and I used to avoid it a lot more often than I do now. Sometimes I still practice avoidance when the conflict is about something that I don’t really care about. Often I will handle conflicts with avoidance initially, until I have more information to decide whether engaging is really worth the effort and energy. Even though I scored very lowly on the competing scale, on occasion I can be more aggressive in conflicts with family or others I know very well, especially if I have tried other methods of managing the conflict and failed.

Moral Superiority

Conflict dynamics are affected by the amount of social mobility in the system, the level and quality of communication between the parties, the scarcity of resources, the leadership styles in the parties, the amount of group solidarity, and the extent to which group members feel that their claims are legitimate. I also think that the way conflict is waged results to a great degree from the environment in which it ensues. Individuals and groups are more likely to engage in explicit conflict when they feel that there are not effective or legitimate alternatives for voicing their concerns and achieving justice. For example, paramilitaries may take up arms when groups feel that the government it biased or lacks the willingness or capacity to address their concerns.

Humans tend to be very willing to commit atrocious acts under the guises of justice, liberty and peace. I think this is because these are viewed as universal ideals that all humans are entitled to. Consequently, the pursuit of these goals is not only legitimized but carries significant moral weight and is difficult for outsiders to challenge without losing their own moral credibility. Therefore, the risk of punishment or resistance towards humans acting in the name of these ideals is greatly reduced, and it becomes not only safe but admirable for them to engage in these acts, which are seen as contributing to the common good, or as a temporary state of necessary and justified upheaval.