Back • Return Home

International Peace or Conflict Management?

Lane Tracy
Department of Management Systems
College of Business Administration
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
USA

It has been shown that industrial organizations can benefit from a moderate amount of internal conflict and external competition (Bondy 1968; Kelly 1970). Thus the focus in management studies has shifted from conflict resolution and minimization to conflict management, whereby destructive conflict is minimized but constructive conflict is encouraged, (Robbins 1974). A similar pattern is found at the personal level where it is recognized that, although excessive stress is harmful, a moderate amount of stress and challenge is good for people (Selye 1956; Miller 1978).

Peace may be defined as the absence of war or of conflict. Under the latter definition international peace is equated with an ideal state of zero conflict between nations. Avoidance of overt conflict behavior, such as war, espionage, propaganda, political interference, and erection of economic barriers, may be emphasized. Yet this often translates into suppression of all forms of disagreement. Because conflicting national values, beliefs, and goals are frequent sources of harmful conflict behavior, they are seen as negative forces to be eliminated.

Drawing upon the framework of living systems theory (Miller 1978), this paper suggests that the same dynamics of conflict apply to nations as to people and organizations. Conflicting values, beliefs, and goals may be the source either of harmful behavior or of useful dialogue and exchange. Rather than elimination of conflict between nations, the goal should be management of conflict in order to extract the benefits of our differences.

The positive side of conflict

In what ways do differences in values provide opportunities for fruitful exchange between nations? One obvious example is in the area of international trade. If the U.S. sets as much value on its wheat as the U.S.S.R. does, and Russians value their vodka and caviar as highly as the Americans do, there would be no reason for either nation to engage in trade. cnde, It is precisely the fact that the U.S.S.R. has a greater need for wheat and the U.S. a greater desire for vodka and caviar that makes international trade mutually beneficial (Tracy 1989).

Cultural value differences can also be a source of worthwhile exchange. Artists in the East and West display different styles in music, ballet, and painting, but these differences do not cause bloodshed. Rather, they provide opportunities for cultural exchange and a certain amount of learning from each other.

The value differences that seem to cause the most overt conflict behavior are political and religious differences. Living systems often seek to propagate the memes that express the essential nature of the system. At the societal level, those memes are political and/or religious. Rather than simply exchanging ideas, societies seek to convert others to their own system of ideas. Communists try to convert capitalists and vice versa. Democracies attempt to alter dictatorships, which in turn seek to undermine republics. Catholics and Protestants try to convert each other, or to liberate themselves from perceived domination by the other society.

The key to whether value differences are potentially useful or harmful seems to lie in whether a system seeks to convert other systems to its own value system. Among social systems such conversion is a prime means of growth. Groups grow by adding new members and indoctrinating them in the norms of the group. Organizations grow by adding and socializing new members, but also by buying or merging with other organizations and imposing their organizational structure and culture on the new acquisitions. Often resistance is encountered, and the dominant organization may have to replace some of the leaders of the acquired units.

Societies may grow through a slow process of converting individuals to their way of thinking. This is the process preferred by many religions, but other societies are not content with this slow process, or may not be successful at it, and may try instead to seize political control and impose their values through force. This may involve political domination within a nation or seizure of territory and citizens from another nation. Such forms of system propagation disturb international peace. The question here is: How can this situation be managed? Is there anything we can learn from conflict management at the organizational level that might be applicable to international conflict management?

Organizational conflict management

Value differences among organization members are viewed as useful resources, at least up to a point. Such differences help to avoid groupthink, the tendency to agree too easily without careful examination of consequences. Differences also tend to promote creativity and innovation. Different viewpoints and approaches to a problem often reveal nonobvious solutions, perhaps involving combinations of the ideas of many people. Even the definition of problems may be aided by value differences, because such differences may lead to a focus on underlying causes rather than on surface problems or symptoms.

Organizational conflict management often involves encouragement of expression of differences, together with openness to the ideas of others. Members are not required to accept, or be converted by, the values of others, but they are asked to recognize these values and try to incorporate them into the definition of a good solution. Superordinate goals are emphasized in order to focus members on the good of the organization, rather than personal or group goals.

Conflict management in organizations may also require some reduction of tensions. Although value differences are useful, there should also be a core of common values, representing the values of the organization. When full expression of differences does not lead to consensus, or at least compromise, it may be necessary to set the problem aside, or fragment it so that parts where agreement is possible can be resolved. Mediation and Process consultation are sometimes employed, particularly to bridge a communication gap or allay distrust. Appeal to higher authority (e.g., a superior in the organization, an external arbitrator, or a court of law) is sometimes necessary. This technique, as well as separation of the conflicting parties, tends to suppress the conflict rather than fully resolving it, but that is perceived as better than forcing one or more people to change their values.

International conflict management

To what extent can any of these techniques of conflict management be applied at the international or intersocietal level? First, it should be recognized that some of the methods for reducing tension are already in place. The World Court is sometimes able to adjudicate disputes. Nations sometimes serve as mediators of disputes between other nations. Diplomats are well aware of the value of fragmenting a problem and resolving parts of it when agreement on the whole cannot be reached (e.g., the process of nuclear disarmament).

One technique that has not been employed at the international level, to my knowledge, is process consultation. It is assumed, apparently, that diplomats know how to communicate clearly, listen actively, and put themselves in the other party's shoes in order to see the dispute from the other's viewpoint. These are some of the techniques taught by process consultants that have been found to be helpful in resolving interpersonal and interorganizational disputes. I suspect that such consultation would be very useful at the international level. Perhaps the United Nations (uN) could develop an international corps of process consultants whose services would be made available to disputing parties.

The UN presumably represents a common core of values. Such values as preservation of human life and of other living species and natural resources, avoidance of pollution or destruction of the planet, and maintenance of law and order are generally subscribed to, but may require some emphasis. Like the CEO of a successful business firm, the Secretary General of the UN must constantly represent these values and remind the member nations of them. In a more restricted sphere the heads of other supranational systems, such as the EEC, Comecon, ASEAN, and NATO should serve a similar function.

Although there seem to be possibilities for adapting conflict reduction techniques from the interpersonal and interorganizational levels to the international sphere, the most interesting possibilities may lie in encouragement of open expression of value differences. Political and religious differences could be sources of creative energy rather than destructive conflict, if approached in the right way. Universities, for instance, have always enabled discussion and comparison of ideologies in a way that permitted new combinations and permutations. Such dispassionate discourse would probably not satisfy true believers, however. What seems to be needed for conflict management at the international level is a system of conferences, panels, debates, and publications whereby advocates of various ideologies could present their views and hear the views of others. The UN serves as a venue for presentation of the views of nations, but where are the institutions for debate and study of religious views (not by scholars, but by representatives of these religions), or for the advocacy of various forms of government? The assumption of many governments seems : to be that suppression of opposing views, rather than expression of them, is the best means to preserving the peace.

With the advent of glasnost the U.S. and U.S.S.R. may be open to a series of debates on the relative merits of communism and capitalism, perhaps conducted by elected representatives of each nation. The debates could be televised and carried by the news media in each country, thereby stirring discussion amongst the people. The likely result of all this, I believe, would not be revolution. Rather, it would be a realization that each system has some things to learn from the other, and a gradual lessening of some differences while retaining the essential character of each system.

Instead of condemning books that haven't even been read and beliefs that haven't been understood, representatives of various religions could be meeting regularly to discuss their differences and developing ways to avoid insulting each other. Despite their differences, most religions of the world have some common concerns and even common beliefs. Even if their basic tenets are considered immutable, they can learn from each other in such matters as fund raising and the encroachment of science. Then let them debate with groups of scientists about their views of the world.

The basic point is that, by institutionalizing ideological debate and study and by providing forums for the exchange and dissemination of views among representatives of various ideologies, international conflict can be managed in such a way that the constructive aspects of conflict are utilized. Supranational systems such as the UN and the EEC should encourage competition among nations in many arenas, including the economic, political, and scientific. By encouraging certain forms of constructive conflict, the pressures for destructive conflict may be reduced. The end product would be constant competition between nations and ideologies, rather than peace.

REFERENCES
Kelly, J. 1970. Make conflict work for you. Harvard Business Review 48 (4):103-13.

Miller, J. G. 1978. Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pondy, L. R. 1968. Organizational conflict: concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly 12:296-320.

Robbins, S. P. 1974. Managing organizational conflict: a nontraditional approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Selye, H. 1956. The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tracy, L. 1989. The living organization: systems of behavior. New York: Praeger.