Systematic Approach To Conflict Resolution

Mapping a conflict is an important first step in conflict intervention. There is a systematic approach to conflict resolution and to producing the desired result or outcome. “Mapping permits an informed judgment about whether the intervention should continue.” (Hocker) Furthermore, mapping allows people to assess and informs whether or not the intervention should continue. By sharing the map, both parties can get on the same page so to speak which can make it easier to resolve because you can see more clearly the other person’s perceptions and recognize similarities and differences.

Explain the statement, “The goal of all intervention is to transform the conflict elements.” Select and illustrate two examples.

The goal of conflict intervention

is to transform conflict in an effort to successfully navigate and create a mutually agreeable (win:win) solution. This result in not only preserving a relationship but often can make it stronger and more healthier.
An example of negotiating for mutual gains:
When I worked for Nike as the Regional Merchandiser Manager for the Central Region of the U.S., I was responsible for creating Nike Brand Shops within leading industry retail accounts. From ideation to execution, analyzing the profitability and success - I provided strategic insight related to both short and long term business strategies for the shop-within-a-shop program.
A conflict I successfully navigated for mutual gains had to do with getting two industry leading retailer accounts to agree to the financing and installation of hardwood flooring in their stores. The latter was a requirement Nike wanted as an effort to agree to moving forward on the building of Nike Shops within their stores. The wood flooring requirement was met with a lot of resistance from the executive management of both leading retailer accounts. The hot buttons for each respective retailer was two fold. First, each retailer wanted to maintain a uniqueness and sense of their own store brand identity and image in the market place. Secondly, wood flooring was an expensive investment which would require removal of existing flooring and as well as cost of new flooring. Plus, there was the added component of “What if…” “What if the Nike Shop didn’t meet expectations” and the retailer would then have to then deal with having a wood floor area within their store environment.
I recall the meeting to negotiate the wood flooring conflict very well.

I began by recognizing both Nike and the retailers’ preferences/needs, barriers and risks. I invited them to hear my summation of each of our brands concerns and they listened because I think they recognized I heard and addressed their concerns well. Next, I asked them to take a leap of faith and allow Nike to pay for the initial installation to show the importance of the added expense for a wood flooring product thus providing the evidence and grounds for the wood flooring requirement. I was successful at getting both sides to see the potential for a win:win solution. The wood flooring resulted in a win:win in that Nike and each retailer both felt it definitely elevated the brand shop environment. More importantly, the added aesthetic lead to an increase in sales. Therefore, in the end - the conflict ended in another win:win because the retailer achieved an increase in sales/profit per square foot, as well as increased product turnover and Nike elevated its brand retailer presence and received more product orders! The success of the woodflooring lead to a joint resolution that built on both Nike and the retailer mutually benefiting. Following this successful negotiation and trial, both retailers agreed to finance all future Nike Shop

installations.
Another example I would share to illustrate is a conflict that seeks the guidance of a neutral third party. The third party “mediator” can remain a neutral and unbiased position while leading towards a resolution through a systematic discussion between the two conflicting people/parties. In serving as a mediator, the third party can seek agreement by taking in all the elements of the conflict and helps map out in ways in which each party feels integrated and heard. This neutral approach helps to facilitate a mutually beneficially integrated, creative solution.