Conflict Endings When we're in the middle of a conflict, it seems to last forever. But conflicts do end. The approach we take in dealing with a conflict affects not only our future communication with those involved but also the type of ending that will occur. Conflicts take many forms. Some go on for a long time, as was the case for Dr. Bennet Omalu in our chapter opener, whose opponents in the NFL attacked him for years, even after he published his ground-breaking paper about CTE. Other conflicts are brief. But most conflicts eventually reach some sort of conclusion. And since conflicts usually occur between people who are close whether group members, friends, lovers, family members, or coworkers these conclusions are necessary for the relationships to continue (Benoit & Benoit, 1990; Malis & Roloff, 2006). Most conflicts end in one of five ways: separation, domination, compromise, integrative agreements, or structural improvements (Peterson, 2002). Separation Some conflicts end when one or more of the people involved terminate communication contact, which is known as separation. Separation can take many forms. It might be technological: we ignore texts, turn our phones off, and block social media profiles. It might be physical, such as when we stop showing up for team meetings or avoid family reunions. Or it might be communicative, such as when we are still living with a roommate but refuse to talk to each other. Separation ends conflict encounters but doesn't solve them. Although we might feel better having detached ourselves from the source of stress the conflict isn't resolved; it's just temporarily on hold. On the other hand, separation isn't always negative. As noted in the competition discussion, if our conflict has escalated to the point that we or others might start kitchen sinking, it's probably best to separate. Temporary separation may help everyone cool off; then we can regroup later and consider how to collaborate. Domination When one person or group of people gets others to abandon their own goals and instead do what the person or group wants, domination has occurred. Conflicts that end with domination are often called win-lose solutions. The people who get their way "win," while the ones who accommodate "lose." The strongest predictor of domination is the power balance between the people involved. In cases in which one person or group has substantial power and opts to use competition, others with less power will likely back down, allowing those with power to dominate. Domination isn't always destructive, however. Consider, for example, medical or military decisions. During emergency situations in which multiple parties are disputing options, having people in positions of authority enforce decisions while other people accommodate solves conflict efficiently, enabling swift action. Compromise Conflicts end in compromise when the parties involved change their goals and actions to make them compatible. This typically results from people using a collaborative approach and is most effective in situations in which people have relatively equal power and the clashing goals aren't especially important. In cases in which everyone considers their goals important, however, compromise tends to foster resentment and regret (Peterson, 2002) Why? Imagine that you're leading a meeting in which a team of nurses will plan next month's work schedule. If everyone comes to the meeting open to working days or nights and weekdays or weekends, you can all collaborate and easily compromise on who works when. But if people have strong preferences about their schedule (I absolutely cannot work Friday nights"), then compromising on these plans will most likely lead to bitterness as team members compare who got their way and who sacrificed the most. Integrative Agreements When people in conflict forge integrative agreements, they generate creative solutions that enable all sides to keep and reach their original goals. Such agreements are commonly called win-win solutions, and people can arrive at them only through collaborative approaches. To create integrative agreements, the parties remain committed to their individual goals but are flexible in how they achieve them (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Borrowing from the previous example, imagine that you and a coworker both want the same night off. Rather than arguing about who has to sacrifice their night-out plans, you could work together to find two other nurses who are qualified to cover for both of you. Structural Improvements Sometimes conflicts end with structural improvements: the parties involved change their relationship rules to prevent further disputes. For example, Steve and his wife, Kelly, used to fight whenever he neglected to tell Kelly about Facebook messages he received from his ex, Michelle. After several clashes, they created a new agreement: whenever Michelle contacts Steve, he must tell Kelly. Now they both know the ground rules regarding Michelle's messages, and this prevents further arguments. In structural improvement cases, the conflict itself becomes a vehicle for reshaping relationships in positive ways - clarifying rules (as with Steve and Kelly), improving the balance of power, or redefining expectations about who will play what roles (for instance, members of a student organization deciding to divide authority between co-presidents after two candidates tie in the presidential election). But as with compromise and integrative agreements, we and others can arrive at structural improvements only by choosing to manage our conflicts through collaboration (see Table 10.2). TABLE 102 TIPS FOR MANAGING CONFLICT ONLINE the de by two thirds at college st oftina reduces atte zufairit error and bookss empishy, fot isn't always postitin or castratile WAIT AND REREAD. When you rooton a message that porches you, don't retased right ance ASSUME TIC BEST AND WATCH OUT FOR DIE WORST. DOWE PRIEST HAIL SEEK OUTSIDE COUNSEL factors spending Saving the station firaly tice to tamil with EIGH YOUR OPTIONS CAREFULLY, Cross canboutly Lstreet erpic