Conflict is unavoidable in any situation involving other people. The art of management (or, if you will, servant leadership) involves to a great extent the ability to resolve conflicts in a just manner. That means respecting the natural dignity of every human person involved in the situation.
Within the Just Third Way, there are three critical factors to resolving conflict. These are, 1) Solidarity, 2) Institutional structures for resolving conflicts when they arise, and 3) Capital ownership within a business enterprise.
Solidarity, a key element of the Just Third Way, relates to the three principles of economic justice, 1) Participation, 2) Distribution, and 3) Social Justice. Solidarity is acceptance by all members of the group of the basic principles that define the group as that specific group.
Solidarity is key to the effective functioning of the group as a group, as well as to acceptance of the rights of private property and free association that provide the “glue” holding society together. Solidarity, however, presumes that all members of the group can understand, and then communicate effectively, the basic principles that define the group as that group. This presents a problem if communication is ineffective.
The success of a business depends upon effective communication within the organization. Managing communication and promoting healthy conflict resolution should, therefore, be a goal of management. If nothing else, effective communication can decrease conflict that interferes with the proper functioning of a business enterprise.
For example, a study commissioned in 2008 by CPP Inc., the Myers-Briggs Company, revealed that workers spend nearly three hours per week dealing with conflict. Compounded across all workers in the U.S., this results in 385 million working days per year.
This is a significant period of time devoted to activity that does not support productive activity either directly or indirectly. Businesses cannot afford to lose that much potentially productive effort and resources to conflict.
Unless everyone in an organization or institution accepts the basic assumptions of that organization or institution, and accepts them in the same way, conflict can ignite from the smallest word or action and spark destructive responses and behaviors. Unresolved or poorly navigated conflict can damage and even destroy relationships.
Conflict, however, does not have to be destructive. Handled effectively, conflict can actually contribute to stronger, deeper relationships and can help to address ongoing problems and concerns. Effective communication skills serve a key role in successfully resolving conflict, both in the home and in the workplace.
Institutional Structures for Conflict Resolution
There are two types of conflict in any organization, and thus two general methods of resolving conflict, depending on the kind of conflict involved.
The first type of conflict is that based on flaws in the institution itself. As a “social tool,” an institution must be designed properly and used correctly, or it won’t work the way intended. Conflict can — unintentionally — be built in to the organization.
Institutional flaws, however, are often the ones most people ignore: something wrong in the structuring of power relationships at any level or all levels within the institution. True, as Lord Acton noted, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. That is why everyone within an institution must have the equal opportunity and means to acquire power so that power is broken up and shared.
Then, while solving institutional conflicts should be the job of those inside the institution or organization, the advice of an outside observer may be essential. This is because people inside the institution can simply be too “close” to the problem and fail to see it. Plus, where power is concentrated within an institution, leaders cannot address conflicts among different levels within the institution or recommend corrective actions.
If the institution promotes solidarity, and everyone goes along with it, instit