Interpersonal conflict on workplace American vs Chinese

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

Chelyabinsk State University

Faculty of Linguistics

English Language Department

Term Project

Interpersonal conflict in workplace

American culture vs. Chinese culture

Student, group # LIE 502

Chelyabinsk - 2012

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 1 Theory of interpersonal conflict in workplace............................................ 4

              1.1. What is the conflict...............................

              1.2. Deferent types of conflict.......................

              1.3. Conflicts in workplace.....................

              1.4. Interpersonal conflict in workplace.....................

              1.5. Conflict resolution..........................................

Conclusion on chapter 1............................................................................................

Chapter 2 Comparison of american and chinese cultures of interpersonal conflict in workplace.................................................................................................................

              2.1. How American and Chinese people understand the definition of conflict...

              2.2. Comparison of the US and China using cross- cultural studies...........

              2.3. The American dual concern model.............................

              2.4. Elements of Chinese culture impacting conflict canagement styles.......

              2.5. Chinese methods of conflict management ............................................

Conclusion....................................

References................................

Itroduction.

              The effective management of workplace conflict requires an understanding of the nature and sources of conflict in the workplace. Conflict occurs when there is a perception of incompatible interests between workplace participants. This should be distinguished from disputes. Disputes are merely a by-product of conflict. They are the outward articulation of conflict. Typical disputes come in the form of formal court cases, grievances, arguments, threats and counter threats etc. Conflict can exist without disputes, but disputes do not exist without conflict. Conflict, however, might not be so easily noticed. Much conflict exists in every workplace without turning into disputes.

              The first step in uncovering workplace conflict is to consider the typical sources of conflict. There are a variety of sources of workplace conflict including interpersonal, organizational, change related, and external factors.

              Organization leaders are responsible for creating a work environment that enables people to thrive. If turf wars, disagreements and differences of opinion escalate into interpersonal conflict, you must intervene immediately. Not intervening is not an option if you value your organization and your positive culture. In conflict-ridden situations, your mediation skill and interventions are critical.

              The relevance of the chosen theme is that the resolution of conflicts at work (especially in its theoretical aspects and practical implementation in large corporations), as one of the main functions in the management process is an important aspect for a close-knit teamwork.

              The aim of project is due to study measures improve managering conflict resolution in the workplace based on a comparison of two different cultures.

              In line with this goal it is necessary to achieve the following tasks:

•    To consider the main theoretical aspects of the conflict;

•    Classify the types and characteristics of conflict in the workplace;

•    Analyze the characteristics of conflict in the workplace;

•    Compare ways of resolving conflicts in different cultures.

              The object of this project is to study the conflict, the state of which depends on the success of the existence and development of the organization as a whole.

              The subject - are the features of conflict resolution in the workplace.

              The methodological basis of this project are the general and specific research methods:

•    The dialectical method;

•    The method of system analysis;

•    A method of abstraction;

•    The method of observation, questioning, summarizing;

•    The study of normative and analytical instruments business.

              The project’s structure consists of an introduction, two chapters, conclusion and bibliography. The introduction outlines the goals and objectives, determined by its relevance and structure. In the first chapter

Chapter 1. Theory of interpersonal conflict in workplace

1.1. What is the conflict?

              Conflict is the struggle for agency or power in society. Conflict occurs when two or more actors oppose each other in different interaction,reciprocally exerting  power in an effort to attain scarce or incompatible goals and prevent the opponent from attaining them. It is a relationship wherein the action is oriented intentionally for carrying out the actor's own will against the resistance of other party or parties.

              Conflict theory emphasizes interests, rather than norms and values, in conflict. The pursuit of interests generates various types of conflict. Thus conflict is seen as a normal aspect of social life rather an abnormal occurrence. Competition over resources is often the cause of conflict. The three tenets of this theory are the following:

1)   Society is composed of different groups that compete for resources.

2)   While societies may portray a sense of cooperation, there is a continual power struggle between social groups as they pursue their own interests. Within societies, certain groups control specific resources and means of production.

3)   Social groups will use resources to their own advantage in the pursuit of their goals. This often means that those who lack control over resources will be taken advantage of. As a result, many dominated groups will struggle with other groups in attempt to gain control.

              The majority of the time, the groups with the most resources will gain or maintain power (due to the fact that they have the resources to support their power). The idea that those who have control will maintain control is known as The Matthew Effect.

              Of the classical founders of social science, conflict theory is most commonly associated with Karl Marx (1818-1883). Based on a dialectical materialist account of history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction. Marx ushered in radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling classes.

              Two early conflict theorists were the Polish-Austrian sociologist and political theorist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) and the American sociologist and paleontologist Lester F. Ward (1841-1913). Although Ward and Gumplowicz developed their theories independently they had much in common and approached conflict from a comprehensive anthropological and evolutionary point-of-view as opposed to Marx's rather exclusive focus on economic factors.

              Gumplowicz, in Grundriss der Soziologie (Outlines of Sociology, 1884), describes how civilization has been shaped by conflict between cultures and ethnic groups. Gumplowicz theorized that large complex human societies evolved from the war and conquest. States become organized around the domination of one group by another: masters and slaves. Eventually a complex caste system develops. Horowitz says that Gumplowicz understood conflict in all it's forms: "class conflict, race conflict and ethnic conflict", and calls him one of the fathers of Conflict Theory.

              Durkheim (1858-1917) saw society as a functioning organism. Functionalism concerns "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system". The chief form of social conflict that Durkheim addressed was crime. Durkheim saw crime as "a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies." The collective conscience defines certain acts as "criminal." Crime thus plays a role in the evolution of morality and law: "it implies not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes."

              Weber's (1864-1920) approach to conflict is contrasted with that of Marx. While Marx focused on the way individual behavior is conditioned by social structure, Weber emphasized the importance of "social action," i.e., the ability of individuals to affect their social relationships.

              C. Wright Mills has been called the founder of modern conflict theory. In Mills's view, social structures are created through conflict between people with differing interests and resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced by these structures and by the "unequal distribution of power and resources in the society." The power elite of American society, (i.e., the military–industrial complex) had "emerged from the fusion of the corporate elite, the Pentagon, and the executive branch of government." Mills argued that the interests of this elite were opposed to those of the people. He theorized that the policies of the power elite would result in "increased escalation of conflict, production of weapons of mass destruction, and possibly the annihilation of the human race."

              Gene Sharp (born 21 January 1928) is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. He is known for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous anti-government resistance movements around the world. In 1983 he founded the Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit organization devoted to studies and promotion of the use of nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide. Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state—regardless of its particular structural organization—ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler. If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power. Sharp has been called both the "Machiavelli of nonviolence" and the "Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare." Sharp's scholarship has influenced resistance organizations around the world. Most recently the protest movement that toppled President Mubarak of Egypt drew extensively on his ideas, as well as the youth movement in Tunisia and the earlier ones in the Eastern European color revolutions that had previously been inspired by Sharp's work.

              A recent articulation of conflict theory is found in Alan Sears' (Canadian sociologist) book A Good Book, in Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking (2008):

-  Societies are defined by inequality that produces conflict, rather than which produces order and consensus. This conflict based on inequality can only be overcome through a fundamental transformation of the existing relations in the society, and is productive of new social relations.

-  The disadvantaged have structural interests that run counter to the status quo, which, once they are assumed, will lead to social change. Thus, they are viewed as agents of change rather than objects one should feel sympathy for.

-  Human potential (e.g., capacity for creativity) is suppressed by conditions of exploitation and oppression, which are necessary in any society with an unequal division of labour. These and other qualities do not necessarily have to be stunted due to the requirements of the so-called "civilizing process," or "functional necessity": creativity is actually an engine for economic development and change.

              The role of theory is in realizing human potential and transforming society, rather than maintaining the power structure. The opposite aim of theory would be the objectivity and detachment associated with positivism, where theory is a neutral, explanatory tool.

              Consensus is a euphemism for ideology. Genuine consensus is not achieved, rather the more powerful in societies are able to impose their conceptions on others and have them accept their discourses. Consensus does not preserve social order, it entrenches stratification, e.g., the American dream.

              Types of conflict theory

              Conflict theory is most commonly associated with Marxism, but as a reaction to functionalism and the positivist method may also be associated with number of other perspectives, including:

1.    Critical theory

2.    Feminist theory

3.    Postmodern theory

4.    Post-structural theory

5.    Postcolonial theory

6.    Queer theory

7.    World systems theory

              Critical theory is an examination and critique of society and culture, drawing from knowledge across the social sciences and humanities. The term has two different meanings with different origins and histories: one originating in sociology and the other in literary criticism. This has led to the very literal use of 'critical theory' as an umbrella term to describe any theory founded upon critique.

              In the sociological context, critical theory refers to a style of Marxist theory developed in the 1930s with a tendency to engage with non-Marxist influences (for instance the work of Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud). Modern critical theory arose from a trajectory extending from the antipositivist sociology of Max Weber and Georg Simmel, the Marxist theory of Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, toward the milieu associated with Frankfurt Institute of Social Research.

              Conflict theory has been used by feminists to explain the position of women in society. Feminist conflict theorists argue that women have traditionally been oppressed so that men can benefit from positions of power, wealth, and status. These theorists would argue that the conflict over limited natural resources is what led men to relegate women to domesticity. This interpretation of conflict theory also leads to the idea that men cannot be trusted to give power to women because this gift would conflict with their inherent nature.

              One of the most popular postmodernist tendencies within aesthetics is deconstruction. As it is currently used, "deconstruction" is a Derridean approach to textual analysis. Deconstructions work entirely within the studied text to expose and undermine the frame of reference, assumptions, and ideological underpinnings of the text. Although deconstructions can be developed using different methods and techniques, the process typically involves demonstrating the multiple possible readings of a text and their resulting internal conflicts, and undermining binary oppositions (e.g. masculine/feminine, old/new). Deconstruction is fundamental to many different fields of postmodernist thought, including postcolonialism, as demonstrated through the writings of Gayatri Spivak.

              Structuralism was a broad philosophical movement that developed particularly in France in the 1950s, partly in response to French Existentialism, but is considered by many to be an exponent of High-Modernism, though its categorization as either a Modernist or Postmodernist trend is contested. Many Structuralists later moved away from the most strict interpretations and applications of "structure", and are thus called "Post-structuralists" in the United States. Though many Post-structuralists were referred to as Postmodern in their lifetimes, many explicitly rejected the term. Notwithstanding, Post-structuralism in much American academic literature in the Humanities is very strongly associated with the broader and more nebulous movement of Postmodernism. Thinkers most typically linked with Structuralism include anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser. Sometimes, the American cultural theorists, critics and intellectuals they influenced (e.g. Judith Butler, Jonathan Crary, John Fiske, Rosalind Krauss, Hayden White).

              Though by no means a unified movement with a set of shared axioms or methodologies, Post-structuralism emphasizes the ways in which different aspects of a cultural order, from its most banal material details to its most abstract theoretical exponents, determine one another. Like Structuralism, it places particular focus on the determination of identities, values and economies in relation to one another, rather than assuming intrinsic properties or essences of signs or components as starting points. In this limited sense, there is a nascent Relativism and Constructionism within the French Structuralists that was consciously addressed by them but never examined to the point of dismantling their reductionist tendencies. Unlike Structuralists, however, the Post-structuralists questioned the division between relation and component and, correspondingly, did not attempt to reduce the subjects of their study to an essential set of relations that could be portrayed with abstract, functional schemes or mathematical symbols.

              Post-Structuralists tended to reject such formulations of “essential relations” in primitive cultures. Generally, Post-structuralists emphasized the inter-determination and contingency of social and historical phenomena with each other and with the cultural values and biases of perspective. Post-structuralists countered that, when closely examined, all formalized claims describing phenomena, reality or truth, rely on some form or circular reasoning and self-referential logic that is often paradoxical in nature.

              As would be expected, Post-structuralist writing tends to connect observations and references from many, widely varying disciplines into a synthetic view of knowledge and its relationship to experience, the body, society and economy - a synthesis in which it sees itself as participating. Stucturalists, while also somewhat inter-disciplinary, were more comfortable within departmental boundaries and often maintained the autonomy of their analytical methods over the objects they analyzed. Post-structuralists, unlike Structuralists, did not privilege a system of (abstract) "relations" over the specifics to which such relations were applied, but tended to see the notion of “the relation” or of systemization itself as part-and-parcel of any stated conclusion rather than a reflection of reality as an independent, self-contained state or object. If anything, if a part of objective reality, theorization and systemization to Post-structuralists was an exponent of larger, more nebulous patterns of control in social orders – patterns that could not be encapsulated in theory without simultaneously conditioning it.

              Post-postmodernism and the "death of postmodernism" have been increasingly widely debated: in 2007 Andrew Hoborek noted in his introduction to a special issue of the journal Twentieth Century Literature titled "After Postmodernism" that "declarations of postmodernism's demise have become a critical commonplace". A small group of critics has put forth a range of theories that aim to describe culture and/or society in the alleged aftermath of postmodernism, most notably Raoul Eshelman (performatism), Gilles Lipovetsky (hypermodernity), Nicolas Bourriaud (Altermodern), and Alan Kirby (digimodernism, formerly called pseudo-modernism). None of these new theories and labels have so far gained very widespread acceptance.

              Formal, academic critiques of postmodernism can be found in works such as Beyond the Hoax and Fashionable Nonsense.

              The term postmodernism, when used pejoratively, describes tendencies perceived as relativist, counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of rationalism, universalism or science. It is also sometimes used to describe tendencies in a society that are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality.

              Post-structuralists hold that the concept of "self" as a separate, singular, and coherent entity is a fictional construct. Instead, an individual comprises tensions between conflicting knowledge claims (e.g. gender, race, class, profession, etc.). Therefore, to properly study a text a reader must understand how the work is related to his or her own personal concept of self. This self-perception plays a critical role in one's interpretation of meaning. While different thinkers' views on the self (or the subject) vary, it is often said to be constituted by discourse(s). Lacan's account includes a psychoanalytic dimension, while Derrida stresses the effects of power on the self. This is thought to be a component of post-modernist theory.

The author's intended meaning, such as it is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or one singular existence. Instead, every individual reader creates a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text. To step outside of literary theory, this position is generalizable to any situation where a subject perceives a sign. Meaning is constructed by an individual from a signifier. This is why the signified is said to 'slide' under the signifier, and explains the talk about the "primacy of the signifier."

              A post-structuralist critic must be able to use a variety of perspectives to create a multifaceted interpretation of a text, even if these interpretations conflict with one another. It is particularly important to analyze how the meanings of a text shift in relation to certain variables, usually involving the identity of the reader (for example: class, racial, or sexual identity).

              Post-structuralism rejects the notion of the essential quality of the dominant relation in the hierarchy, choosing rather to expose these relations and the dependency of the dominant term on its apparently subservient counterpart. The only way to properly understand these meanings is to deconstruct the assumptions and knowledge systems which produce the illusion of singular meaning. This act of deconstruction illuminates how male can become female, how speech can become writing, and how rational can become emotional.

              Postcolonialism is a specifically postmodern intellectual discourse that consists of reactions to, and analysis of, the cultural legacy of colonialism and imperialism. Postcolonialism is defined in anthropology as the relations between European nations and areas they colonized and once ruled.  Postcolonialism comprises a set of theories found amongst history, anthropology, philosophy, linguistics, film, political science, architecture, human geography, sociology, feminism, religious and theological studies, and literature.

              The critical nature of postcolonial theory entails destabilizing Western ways of thinking, therefore creating space for the subaltern, or marginalized groups, to speak and produce alternatives to dominant discourse.

              Often, previously colonized places are homogenized in western discourse under an umbrella label such as the ‘Third World’. Postcolonialism demonstrates the heterogeneity of colonized places by analyzing the uneven impact of Western colonialism on different places, peoples, and cultures. This is done by engaging with the variety of ways in which “relations, practices and representations” of the past is “reproduced or transformed”, and studying the connections between the “heart and margins” of the empire. Moreover, postcolonialism recognizes that there was, and still is, resistance to the West. This resistance is practiced by many, including the subaltern, a group of marginalized, and least powerful.

              Postcolonial theory provides a framework that destabilizes dominant discourses in the West, challenges “inherent assumptions”, and critiques the “material and discursive legacies of colonialism”. In order to challenge these assumptions and legacies of colonialism, postcolonial studies needs to be grounded, which entails working with tangible identities, connections, and processes. Postcolonial theorist Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism has been described as a seminal work in the field.

              Furthermore, Postcolonialism deals with cultural identity in colonized societies: the dilemmas of developing a national identity after colonial rule; the ways in which writers articulate and celebrate that identity; the ways in which the knowledge of the colonized people has been generated and used to serve the colonizer's interests; and the ways in which the colonizer's literature has justified colonialism via images of the colonised as a perpetually inferior people, society and culture. These inward struggles of identity, history, and future possibilities often occur in the metropolis and, ironically, with the aid of postcolonial structures of power, such as universities.

              Queer theory is a field of post-structuralist critical theory that emerged in the early 1990s out of the fields of queer studies and Women's studies. Queer theory includes both queer readings of texts and the theorisation of 'queerness' itself. Heavily influenced by the work of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Judith Butler, and Lauren Berlant, queer theory builds both upon feminist challenges to the idea that gender is part of the essential self and upon gay/lesbian studies' close examination of the socially constructed nature of sexual acts and identities. Whereas gay/lesbian studies focused its inquiries into "natural" and "unnatural" behaviour with respect to homosexual behaviour, queer theory expands its focus to encompass any kind of sexual activity or identity that falls into normative and deviant categories.

              Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. 'Queer' then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative.
              Queer theory's main project is exploring the contesting of the categorisation of gender and sexuality; identities are not fixed – they cannot be categorised and labeled – because identities consist of many varied components and that to categorise by one characteristic is wrong. Queer theory said that there is an interval between what a subject “does” (role-taking) and what a subject “is” (the self). So despite its title the theory's goal is to destabilise identity categories, which are designed to identify the “sexed subject” and place individuals within a single restrictive sexual orientation.

              Queer theory is derived largely from post-structuralist theory, and deconstruction in particular. Starting in the 1970s, a range of authors brought deconstructionist critical approaches to bear on issues of sexual identity, and especially on the construction of a normative "straight" ideology. Queer theorists challenged the validity and consistency of heteronormative discourse, and focused to a large degree on non-heteronormative sexualities and sexual practices.

              The world-systems theory (also known as the world-systems analysis) is a multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to world history and social change.

              The world-systems theory stresses that world-systems (and not nation states) should be the basic unit of social analysis. World-system refers to the international division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system is dynamic, and individual states can gain or lose the core status over time. For a time, some countries become the world hegemon; throughout last few centuries, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and most recently, the United States.

The most well-known version of the world-system approach has been developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in 1970s and 1980s.

              Wallerstein's project is frequently mis-understood as world-systems "theory," a term that he consistently rejects. For Wallerstein, world-systems analysis is above all a mode of analysis that aims to transcend the structures of knowledge inherited from the 19th century. This includes, especially, the divisions within the social sciences, and between the social sciences and history.

              World systems theory builds on but also parts from the proposition of dependency theory. Fernando Henrique Cardoso described the main tenets of the dependency theories as follows:

-  there is a financial and technological penetration of the periphery and semi-periphery countries by the developed capitalist core countries

-  this produces an unbalanced economic structure within the peripheral societies and among them and the centers

-  this leads to limitations upon self-sustained growth in the periphery

-  this favors the appearance of specific patterns of class relations

-  these require modifications in the role of the state to guarantee the functioning of the economy and the political articulation of a society, which contains, within itself, foci of inarticulateness and structural imbalance.

              Dependency and world system theory propose that the poverty and backwardness of poor countries are caused by their peripheral position in the international division of labor. Since the capitalist world system evolved, the distinction among the central and the peripheral nations has grown.

              In recognizing a tripartite pattern in division of labor, world-systems analysis criticized dependency theory with its bimodal system of only cores and peripheries.

1.2. Different types of conflict.

              There are many views on the types of conflict that afflict humanity. Some philosophers say our biggest conflicts are internal struggles, while others claim that incessant conflict exists between man and the outside world. One common view is that conflict can be classified under five major categories: relationships, data, structural, values and interest. Whatever the cause, conflict has an impact on everyone's lives.

              A conceptual conflict can escalate into a verbal exchange and/or result in fighting.

              Conflict can exist at a variety of levels of analysis:

•    community conflict are caused by differing views and values, and if there's no effort made to resolve these conflicts, they may become deeply entrenched until a community is sharply divided on opposing sides

•    diplomatic conflict

•    economic conflict are those that relate to each other in a way that can relate badly to our economy i.e. Technology/Employment (the reason for this is due to the rapidly developing technology with AI doing tasks/jobs that a person can do, like installing different pieces of a car together)

•    emotional conflict may be defined as the presence in the subconscious of different and opposing emotions relating to a situation that has recently taken place or is in the process of being unfolded. They may be accompanied at times by a physical discomfort, especially when 'a functional disturbance has become associated with an emotional conflict in childhood', and in particular by tension headaches 'expressing a state of inner tension...[or] caused by an unconscious conflict'.

•    environmental resources conflict

•    external conflict

•    group conflict is a pervasive feature common to all levels of social organization (e.g., sports teams, ethnic groups, nations, religions, gangs).[1] Although group conflict is one of the most complex phenomena studied by social scientists. Group conflict can be separated into two sub-categories of conflict: inter-group conflict (in which distinct groups of individuals are at odds with one another), and intra-group conflict (in which select individuals a part of the same group clash with one another).

•    ideological conflict are the core values, beliefs of a group, strongly tied to people’s sense of self,in constant flux. Values are often in tension. Ideologies are constantly being interpreted in the face of changing events, more like guiding strategies than sets of unchanging principles

•    international conflict referred to conflicts between different nation-states and conflicts between people and organizations in different nation-states. Increasingly, however, it also applies to inter-group conflicts within one country when one group is fighting for independence or increased social, political, or economic power (e.g., Chechnya, Kosovo).

•    interpersonal conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals

•    intersocietal conflict are those authoritative actions, understandings, or commitments of the authorities of groups18 within one state with those groups or citizens of another state, or those relations within groups whose membership and organizations transcend states. The latter would include, for example, multinational corporations with foreign subsidiaries, the Catholic church, or international professional associations. Also, included in intersocietal relations are companies selling goods to the citizens of other states, contacts between foreign firms, or a company contracting with a foreign firm.

•    conflicts of interest are when one person believes she must sacrifice the needs of another in order to achieve her goals. Such conflicts can center on resources, such as money or time, or on psychological issues related to needs and/or desires. Conflicts of interests can sometimes be resolved through compromise, in which one party agrees to give up something she wants in exchange for getting another thing she wants from the other individual involved in the conflict.

•    intrastate conflict (for example:civil wars,election campaigns) are those authoritative actions, understandings, or commitments of the governmental authorities--the leaders--of one state to or with the governmental authorities of another state or its groups or citizens, either bilaterally or through international organizations. For example, this would not only include the obvious international conferences, military aid, state visits, treaties, and the like, but also nationalizations of foreign business, expelling foreign newsmen, arresting a foreign national, applying duties to foreign goods, censoring foreign magazines. Thus, any authoritative actions of a state's governmental elite against any citizen or group or another state is part of interstate relations.

•    intrapersonal conflict (though this usually just gets delegated out to psychology) is a conflict that occurs solely in the psychological dynamics of the individual's own mind. Struggling with competing personal values and desires.

•    organizational conflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people working together. Conflict takes many forms in organizations. There is the inevitable clash between formal authority and power and those individuals and groups affected. There are disputes over how revenues should be divided, how the work should be done, and how long and hard people should work. There are jurisdictional disagreements among individuals, departments, and between unions and management. There are subtler forms of conflict involving rivalries, jealousies, personality clashes, role definitions, and struggles for power and favor. There is also conflict within individuals — between competing needs and demands — to which individuals respond in different ways

•    intra-societal conflict is locating conflicts within society such as ethnic rivalry or the Marxist notion of class struggle inherent in capitalist societies.

•    military conflict  is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war, (and other violence) is usually called peace.

•    religious-based conflict (for example: Center For Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict) conflicts based on religion tend to become dogged, tenacious and brutal types of wars. When conflicts are couched in religious terms, they become transformed in value conflicts. Unlike other issues, such as resource conflicts which can be resolved by pragmatic and distributive means, value conflicts have a tendency to become mutually conclusive or zero-sum issues. They entail strong judgments of what is right and wrong, and parties believe that there cannot be a common ground to resolve their differences.

•    workplace conflict is a specific type of conflict that occurs in workplaces. The conflicts that arise in workplaces may be shaped by the unique aspects of this environment, including the long hours many people spend at their workplace, the hierarchical structure of the organization, and the difficulties (e.g. financial consequences) that may be involved in switching to a different workplace. In this respect, workplaces share much in common with schools, especially pre-college educational institutions in which students are less autonomous.

•    data conflict arises when there is a dispute between factual information and a person's opinion, or when two data sets or facts are not in agreement. A man can believe his child is a genius despite the child's average IQ test score. Or information about how to treat a particular disease--for example--may be in conflict, depending on the views and treatment modality of the health-care practitioners. A data conflict can also be based on misinformation and miscommunication between parties. The resolution for this type of conflict can occur if everyone is persuaded to agree on a set of facts. Most people will be persuaded by evidence that clearly supports a particular point of view.

•    relationship conflict happens when a difference of opinion occurs between two or more people who share a common bond--typically family members, spouses and friends. A relationship conflict occurs when the parties involved experience miscommunication or have difficulty in expressing themselves or understanding another person's point of view. The solution to this type of conflict is possible if each person can clearly state his goals, ideals or needs and clearly express expectations for the future. If people in relationship compromise with the view of having everyone's needs met to some degree, it is more likely they will be able to ease conflict.

•    racial conflict  has caused great controversy for many centuries. Conflict which is incited by racism is often thought to be the most heinous of all conflicts because it is unfounded and based on utterly false beliefs. Racial conflict, in essence, arises when prejudice or discrimination occurs based solely on racial factors between certain races. The severe nature of racial conflict can be clearly seen by examining two distinct areas: the perception of racial inequality, as well as stereotyping.

•    Since values are a key component in guiding a person to make major life decisions, it is common for a conflict in values to arise at times. Such conflicts can erupt when two people have differing religious, political or moral ideals or, generally, different belief systems. The best way to tackle values conflicts is to develop empathy and tolerance and to cultivate the idea that diverse life experiences create diverse points of view. Toleration of differing values will vary according to the degree of intimacy with another person. While it may be easy to tolerate a significant difference in values in a co-worker, it will be harder to tolerate such a difference in a spouse or another close relative.

•    A structural conflict occurs when outside influences have a direct impact on the goal an individual is trying to reach. Structural conflicts can arise if forces beyond one's control impede a process, like no having enough funds to build a new home or lacking time to finish a particular project. A disinterested third party sometimes can be effective in resolving structural conflicts and helping those involved understand and accept the constraints placed upon them.

              Conflicts in these levels may appear "nested" in conflicts residing at larger levels of analysis. For example, conflict within a work team may play out the dynamics of a broader conflict in the organization as a whole. (See Marie Dugan's article on Nested Conflict. John Paul Lederach has also written on this.) Theorists have claimed that parties can conceptualize responses to conflict according to a two-dimensional scheme; concern for one's own outcomes and concern for the outcomes of the other party. This scheme leads to the following hypotheses:

1.      High concern for both one's own and the other party's outcomes leads to attempts to find mutually beneficial solutions.

2.      High concern for one's own outcomes only leads to attempts to "win" the conflict.

3.      High concern for the other party's outcomes only leads to allowing the other to "win" the conflict.

4.      No concern for either side's outcomes leads to attempts to avoid the conflict.

              In Western society, practitioners usually suggest that attempts to find mutually beneficial solutions lead to the most satisfactory outcomes, but this may not hold true for many Asian societies. Several theorists detect successive phases in the development of conflicts.

              Often a group finds itself in conflict over facts, goals, methods or values. It is critical that it properly identify the type of conflict it is experiencing if it hopes to manage the conflict through to resolution. For example, a group will often treat an assumption as a fact.

              The more difficult type of conflict is when values are the root cause. It is more likely that a conflict over facts, or assumptions, will be resolved than one over values. It is extremely difficult to "prove" that a value is "right" or "correct". In some instances, a group will benefit from the use of a facilitator or process consultant to help identify the specific type of conflict. Practitioners of nonviolence have developed many practices to solve social and political conflicts without resorting to violence or coercion.

              Conflict can arise between several characters and there can be more than one in a story or plot line. The little plot lines usually enhance the main conflict. Conflict also defines as natural disagreement resulting from individuals or groups that differ in beliefs, attitudes, values or needs. It can also originate from past rivalries and personality differences. Other causes of conflict include trying to negotiate before the

timing is right or before needed information is available. The following are the causes of conflict:

•    communication failure

•    personality conflict

•    value differences

•    goal differences

•    methodological differences

•    substandard performance

•    lack of cooperation

•    differences regarding authority

•    differences regarding responsibility