Dealing with Conflicts in Social Systems

Basic examples of conflict resolution:

Withdrawal

Elimination of the rival

Subjugation

Delegation to a higher authority

Concession, compromise

Consensus, agreement

AVOIDANCE

This is the oldest form of conflict resolution. It is the most important element in primitive humans (ape-men) and in primitive hunter-gatherer cultures.

When faced with problems, the first reaction observed in modern humans is also flight. As in the example of fleeing the scene of an accident. However, rational behaviour subsequently prevails and the futility of flight is realised.

Sweeping rubbish under the carpet, postponing the solution to a problem, and so on. Flight and aggression go hand in hand. A creature cornered may resort to attack.

A macaque fleeing from its enemy first climbs up to the highest branches and, in a spontaneous reaction, empties its large intestine onto the enemy from there.

In practice, the following question remains open-ended: 'To what extent can throwing faeces or mud be used as a "leadership tool"?'

Flight is generally not a suitable tool for resolving social problems. The problem has merely been postponed. It is not possible to treat a toothache with a painkiller.

Learning through avoidance is not possible.

ELIMINATION OF THE RIVAL

Where avoidance fails, war ensues. The simplest form is a fight to the death. At the end of the duel, the rival is eliminated.

The ultimate solution: applying sulphuric acid to the root, crushing the snake's head, eliminating rival firms, the death penalty, isolation, and so on.

By eliminating the rival to solve the problem, the immediate issue is radically eradicated. Once again, there is no learning process. No opportunity is given to correct the mistake. A 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' culture develops.

SUBMISSION

The abandonment of eliminating the rival by killing them has ushered in a new era: slavery. The concept of slavery developed alongside the notions of 'ownership' and 'property'.

Contemporary forms of subjugation:

– Majority decision

– Corporate takeovers. Subjugation has fostered hierarchy. Superiors – Subordinates Owners – slaves
Or "Who is subordinate to whom?"

DELEGATION TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY 

Resolution of the issue by a third party not involved in the conflict: an arbitrator, a judge. The theoretical conditions (foundations) for delegation to a higher authority are as follows:

One of the conflicting parties must be in the right, the other in the wrong (the opposite of a pluralistic worldview)

The person acting as arbitrator must be capable of distinguishing between right and wrong,

The arbitrator's decision must be accepted by the conflicting parties

COMPROMISE, RECONCILIATION (COMPROMISE)

Here, problem-solving is addressed directly between the parties without involving higher authorities. Compromise is achieved through the parties' mutual concessions, leading to 'reaching a common ground'. Collective bargaining, price negotiations, etc.

Discussions should first focus on points where agreement can be reached. Starting in this way means that part of the path towards full consensus has already been covered.

The most dangerous form of compromise is 'apparent compromise'. No decision is made on the core issue. The decision taken has nothing to do with the actual problem.

CONSENSUS, AGREEMENT

Intractable (aporia) conflicts cannot be resolved through avoidance, elimination, subjugation, delegation or compromise.

Avoiding the issue is futile. Opposition must not be ignored.

Quick fixes (elimination, subjugation, delegation) merely prolong the resolution process.

Understanding, reconciliation and agreement. Those with differing views must also be included in the process.

Tolerance

Acceptance of internal dynamics as an indicator of the system's vitality. Utilising internal dynamics rather than fighting against them.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS

The survival and development of an order, organisation or institution require the use of energy. Nothing can be created from nothing. Even the best-tended gardens will quickly run wild without the care of a gardener. Chaos arises spontaneously. No special energy is required to create chaos. High quality can only be achieved through considerable effort.

The depth or complexity of an organisation can only be increased to the extent permitted by its energy balance. If you try to meddle in every matter, you will disrupt the organisation's core functions. Professional bodies cannot act like political parties or trade unions, as they lack the organisational depth and complexity required to carry out such activities. As the organisation or institution lacks units capable of fulfilling such functions, the duties of political parties and trade unions—which are attempted to be carried out solely through the personal efforts of individuals—cannot go beyond mere shouting and clamour. Establishing and maintaining the staff required to fulfil such functions is not possible with limited energy.

On the other hand, you are obliged to make the most of the resources provided to the organisation under the authority granted by law and regulations. TŞOF sells application files and forms, printed on the poorest quality paper, to learner drivers at the highest possible price. However, in return, it provides no services whatsoever to these learner drivers. In return for the money it receives, it also inflicts hardship on candidates by making them queue. It assumes no responsibility whatsoever. No one – apart from those who govern the state – knows what purpose such institutions serve. They merely collect money, and this money ends up in someone's pocket.

The MMO, too, uses the authority granted to it by law to sell a range of services. These include inspections of pressure vessels, lifts, forklift trucks and boilers; LPG leak-tightness tests; and training courses for construction machinery and boilers. It is very difficult to say that these services are carried out properly. The services we sell are no different from the filing fees paid to TŞOF by citizens or colleagues. For many of us, addressing these issues—which directly concern the integrity of our profession—may seem trivial compared to a mission to save the nation. However, the fact that no one volunteers when a call is made for such a mission teaches those who understand a great deal.

The energy that ought to be channelled into improving our day-to-day work is being squandered on polemics with certain newspaper columnists of dubious standing. So-and-so has written this, such-and-such has drawn that. Let's issue a rebuttal, make a press statement, and so on and so forth. For goodness' sake, it's just a two-bit newspaper. Let them write whatever they like. Does the sharpness of our responses to these journalists or columnists really concern a colleague or citizen who has to wait from eight in the morning until twelve just to get a signature? How many of our members do you think are actually interested in the articles and polemics published in the bulletins?

The Chamber's struggles in carrying out its day-to-day business may stem not only from energy being misallocated but also from professional staff being drawn into daily management-opposition squabbles, thereby undermining their motivation. We must not overlook the impact of drifting away from professionalism.

In the businesses we visit for inspections, not even a proper pen and paper are used, let alone any measuring equipment. For the business owner, all of this – just like the quality system certificate – holds no meaning beyond being a necessary formality to be endured in order to obtain the certificate. We do not even know which company's which machine is due for its periodic inspection in which week. Despite all these computers, I suppose we would first have to expel the IMF from our country before we could have a monitoring system at company and facility/machine level.

The smooth functioning of an organisation's structure cannot be ensured by criticism alone. Criticism is destructive, whether we accept it or not. The only form of communication that is instructive and brings about behavioural change is dialogue. There is no place for criticism in dialogue. Instead, there is feedback. The difference between feedback and criticism is that feedback is non-judgemental and conveys 'This is what I understand from your behaviour and your words!' rather than 'This is who you are!'. Let us now put aside statements such as 'Criticism and self-criticism are our daily bread'. Because all of these serve no purpose other than the desire to belittle or subjugate the opponent. In short, there is no learning in this sort of problem-solving approach. A process devoid of learning does not bring about behavioural change, whether in individuals or organisations.

I've given up on dialogue; we don't even know how to offer proper criticism. Our problem-solving method always takes the form of evasion and venting. That is not democracy, my friends. Democratic culture is a culture of chivalry. In this culture, one faces one another head-on. Lying in wait or ensuring that criticism is relayed to the person being criticised by others does not befit those who see themselves as paragons of virtue and patriotism. At the very least, we must be prepared to face conflict head-on.

We have elected a government after a great deal of effort and struggle. We criticise every action of this administration simply because it deviates from one set of standards or another. We tear it to shreds. What are these standards? Even the shape of a brick changes over time. Yet the standards of our opposition friends never change. Who set them, and are they suited to the conditions of the day? No one knows. What is the common ground that unites us? Is it merely about being radical, about opposing everything? No one is discussing these issues. There is only evasion. Slinging mud and mudslinging have been turned into a tool for solving problems. Moreover, we see that even the staff in the office have become divided into those opposed to the management and those in favour of it. I cannot imagine what productive work can be done in such an environment.

TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS

Human systems are established to provide certain benefits and advantages to the individuals who constitute them. These systems are not independent, isolated or closed off from their surroundings. The components—that is, the people—are also members of other organisations. The family, a football club, a political party, etc.

The vision and policies of the other organisations to which our members and managers belong do not necessarily have to align exactly with our own. However, it is essential that we share certain common characteristics unique to us. If a human system lacks a vision or a sense of purpose, there can be no rationale for its establishment either.

It is entirely natural for all components of a human system to be interconnected and to interact with one another. A healthy interaction and mutual relationship, ensuring the system's output is as desired, is achieved through an appropriate communication environment. To facilitate communication and operation, it is necessary to provide the tools for dialogue, learning, planning and taking action.

The first step must be to bring the entire open system (that is, the individuals who comprise it) together in the same physical space on a specific date. We must embark as soon as possible on a form of working known as a 'Search' or 'Search for the Future' Conference. The aim of this work should not be a meeting where 'everyone simply vents their grievances'. On the contrary, rather than exacerbating divisions, it should serve to crystallise the common ground and values that bring us together and to forge a shared vision. Not getting bogged down in the problems of the past does not mean compromising on the views of individuals or groups at any time. The essential feature of such events is to focus on the points that unite us, rather than those that divide us. Up to now, everyone has described a different part of the elephant. The aim must be to see the whole picture. The path to follow should be:

Learning from one another (through mutual feedback, not criticism)

Designing a vision (common ground)

Setting objectives

Planning measures.

Yours sincerely, Tuğran KÜLAHOĞLU, Bursa, September 2001

Source: Ossimitz, Dr Günther, Einführung in die Systemwissenschaften: Lecture notes from the 2000 summer semester

Download in PDF format (only in Turkish)