Distinction between “conflicts” and “disputes” and why it matters…

The distinction between “conflicts” and “disputes” is nuanced and significant, though often misunderstood. John Burton’s perspective (https://www.beyondintractability.org/artsum/burton-conflict)  offers a particularly useful differentiation based on the duration and nature of the issues involved.

Disputes are short-term disagreements that are typically easier to resolve and generally involve negotiable interests, such as price negotiations or task assignments at work. Solutions to disputes can be found that partially satisfy both parties’ interests. In contrast, conflicts are long-term, deep-rooted problems involving non-negotiable issues, often tied to fundamental values, identity, security, and recognition. Examples include moral or value differences, high-stakes distributional issues, and power dynamics. These issues are highly resistant to resolution and tend to persist over time.

Practical example: workplace mediation

Consider a workplace scenario where two employees, Alex and Jamie, are in conflict. Initially, it might appear to be a dispute over project responsibilities. A mediator addressing it as a dispute would facilitate discussions to clarify roles, negotiate responsibilities, and find a compromise. This might resolve the immediate issue, but if there are deeper underlying conflicts, such as feelings of disrespect or unfair treatment, the resolution will be temporary.

By understanding the distinction, the mediator delves deeper, recognising that the conflict involves issues of recognition and respect. The mediation process includes individual sessions to explore each party’s feelings and joint sessions to improve communication and rebuild trust. The mediator facilitates discussions about workplace culture and encourages both parties to share their experiences and perspectives. This comprehensive approach not only resolves the immediate dispute but also addresses the underlying conflict, leading to a more harmonious and productive work environment.

So why is it important to understand the difference?

Nature and scope of issues

Disputes are generally specific, short-term disagreements that can often be resolved through negotiation and compromise. Conflicts, however, are deep-rooted, long-term issues involving fundamental needs, values, and identities. Mediators who understand this distinction can better identify the underlying causes of the issues presented and address them appropriately. This understanding ensures that mediators do not oversimplify complex conflicts or fail to see the bigger picture when dealing with disputes.

Tailored approaches

Effective mediation requires different approaches for disputes and conflicts. Disputes often benefit from problem-solving strategies and negotiation tactics aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution. In contrast, conflicts may require a more transformative approach, focusing on understanding and addressing deeper issues such as trust, identity, and long-standing grievances. Mediators equipped with this knowledge can tailor their methods to suit the specific nature of the problem, leading to more effective and lasting resolutions.

Depth of resolution

Resolving a dispute might simply involve finding a compromise that satisfies both parties’ immediate interests. However, resolving a conflict often requires deeper engagement to address underlying emotional, psychological, and relational issues. Mediators need to be aware of this to ensure they do not merely apply a superficial fix to what is actually a complex, deep-seated conflict. Understanding this helps mediators aim for resolutions that not only address the surface issues but also promote long-term peace and stability.

Managing expectations

Clients often enter mediation with different expectations based on whether they are involved in a dispute or a conflict. By understanding the difference, mediators can manage these expectations more effectively, helping parties understand the likely scope, duration, and complexity of the mediation process. This understanding also helps in setting realistic goals and preparing the parties for the emotional and procedural demands of the mediation.

Addressing interests vs. needs

Disputes often revolve around specific interests, such as financial compensation, property division, or contractual obligations. Mediators help parties articulate these interests and find a compromise. In conflicts, however, the focus shifts to underlying needs, such as the need for recognition, security, or identity. For example, in a community conflict involving racial tensions, the mediator helps address the community’s need for respect, inclusion, and historical acknowledgment, going beyond just resolving specific incidents.

Emotional and psychological dynamics

Disputes may involve some level of emotional engagement, but conflicts are often deeply emotional and psychological. Mediators need to be sensitive to these dynamics and skilled in handling strong emotions. In a workplace dispute about job duties, the mediator might focus on clarifying roles and responsibilities. However, in a workplace conflict involving bullying or harassment, the mediator must address the emotional trauma, rebuild the victim’s sense of safety and self-worth, and foster a more respectful workplace culture.

Conclusion

Understanding the difference between resolving conflicts and resolving disputes is crucial for mediators because it fundamentally influences their approach, strategies, and the ultimate success of the mediation process. Disputes involve short-term, negotiable issues that can be resolved through negotiation and compromise, while conflicts are long-term, deep-rooted issues involving fundamental needs, values, and identities. Mediators need to tailor their methods to suit the specific nature of the problem, aiming for resolutions that not only address the surface issues but also promote long-term peace and stability. This understanding helps in managing expectations, designing appropriate processes, employing effective communication strategies, addressing both interests and underlying needs, and ensuring long-term solutions and follow-up. By recognising and addressing these differences, mediators can facilitate more effective and sustainable resolutions, fostering deeper understanding, trust, and reconciliation among the parties involved.

Compiled by Eugene Opperman (B.Proc. LLB.) (LSSA L.E.A.D., ADR Network, FAMAC, NABFAM), a legal practitioner and accredited mediator.