Conflict Strategy Brief
Conflict Strategy Brief
Benjamin Fouse
Department of Communications
COMS 560 Communication and Conflict
Dr. John Katsion
November 7, 2021
Conflict Strategy Brief
Executive Summary
In this paper the nature and circumstances of a present reoccurring conflict are discussed. The
presence of differing conflict styles exacerbates the issues making resolution or reconciliation difficult.
The conflict arises between a roommate and myself. As someone who prefers to compromise in conflict it
is challenging finding middle ground with my roommate who is primarily a competitor. On top of being a
primary competitor my roommate finds particular interest in beginning debates with aggressive and
personal comments regarding various hot button topics. This brief discusses the current power dynamic
present within the conflict and measures it in terms of intelligence as well as logical argumentation as
well as current goals for conflict resolution. This is primarily coupled with the fact that my roommate
himself is highly intelligent and considers this to be a personal defining trait. Tactics, such as conflict
style adjustment on my part as well as my roommate’s offer some insight as to why some aspects of
conflict are occurring. Finally, this brief discusses the overall assessment of conflict as well as personal
regulation of the conflict, followed by attempted solutions. The overall assessment is that the primary
reason for conflict is that personal styles of conflict combined with skewed power dynamics creates an
environment unfit for the fostering of reconciliation. Personal self-regulation has been polluted by
personal pride and unwillingness to concede. Attempted solutions that might yet be tried consist of having
focused conversations on the root issues as opposed to matching conflict styles and diverging subjects.
Conflict Strategy Brief
Introduction/Nature of Conflict
My roommate is a very intelligent individual, as context, he is in his last year of surgical
orthopedic medical school as well as involved in ROTC at Liberty University. Well versed in politics as
well as religion, it is not often that there is a subject of conversation that arises that he has little to no
knowledge of. Add to this a personality that understands and enjoys logical debate and it is often the case
that an offhanded illogical comment, or ill thought through argument, doesn’t usually pass by unnoticed.
These tendencies are backed by his particular enjoyment of saying things that initially seem provoking
and radical. This brief synapsis is only some of what I have gathered over the relatively short period of
our being roommates. Being rather opinionated in-and-of-itself often is no issue, the danger comes when
the opinion is backed by intelligence and conviction. His assumptions about conflict became clear to me
when, in the early hours of the morning while I was reading my devotions, my roommate approached me
asking a series of seemingly unrelated questions. First, he asked how I felt about debate, next he
questioned what I thought about the profoundly instrumental character of Paul in the New Testament. As
a rather orthodox Baptist my response was as one might imagine, that I both loved and supported Paul’s
ministry following his conversion. To which, my roommate responded that he believed Paul’s ministry to
have “satanic roots”.
Obviously, this began a series of long and nuanced conversations. As one might imagine, the
debate often drifted from one theological discussion ranging from the impact of human will, to Jewish
origins, and much more. Additionally, the conflict style fluctuated from confrontational to passive to
agreeable and everywhere in between. While many thoughts could be shared about the issues of the
conflict itself, the bottom line is that there were often instances where my own patience was worn thin
and I participated in destructive conflict such as sarcasm, purposefully flawed arguments for the sake of
distraction, and personal attacks.
Creative solutions to such issues, withstanding the conflict itself, would be to limit the time spent
debating. There were many topics that arose that were obvious there would be no clear cut resolution to
Conflict Strategy Brief
on either side. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that they shouldn’t be discussed, it might be beneficial
that tangible limits were set in place to restrain the development of further issues of conflict. Another
would be the humanization of each other’s theological stances. The approach of alienating the other’s
stance as one that is completely illogical and without base often undermines the purpose of discussion. By
neglecting to actively allow for some basis of credence to the other’s position we both have been
unhelpful in arriving at some sort of reconciliation.
As laid out by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), there are five distinct styles of conflict,
these being 1. compromiser, 2. problem solver, 3. accommodator, 4. avoider, and 5. competer (2021, para.
2). While my own conflict style relies heavily on a compromising approach, my roommate undoubtedly
prefers to compete in conflict. Thus, while I initially primarily responded by seeking to find middle
ground solutions it quickly became clear that this was not something my roommate would be satisfied
with. Additionally, while it was clear initially that I would be willing to seek middle ground, this only
served to fuel my roommate’s proclivity to say what he knew would be seemingly outlandish statements
and then refuse to back down. Thus, throughout the course of the conflict, my stance to increasingly
radical opinions given by my roommate, was to become more competitive. It is in this way that both of
our conflict styles reinforced the other’s position to compete as opposed to listen and understand. From a
removed perspective there is little complimentary attributes within the two conflict styles that I might
reasonably find. However, this could be due to the fact that my least appreciated form of conflict
resolution would be competing, meaning that as it progressed there would be a negative proclivity to
adverse adaption.
Power/Goals
The question of power is a difficult one to accurately assess. Frankenberg posits in her report on
measuring power in conflicts within romantic relationships that there could be a number of outside factors
Conflict Strategy Brief
that play crucial roles in power dynamics (2017, p. 2-3). There is often a desire to paint the other in a
negative light, especially when it comes to terms of power and how they might view it. However, from
the outset, it seemed to me to be clear that the currency of power, in this case, was being measured by
intelligence and the ability to provide clear logic. My roommate, someone who enjoys the logic of debate,
and who is rather intelligent by any standards seems to view power as belonging to the one who controls
the flow of logic (Lederach, 2003 p. 4). When this power dynamic is introduced to topics of theological
origin however, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Religion, and Christianity at its’ very core is
founded on a basis of faith, meaning, there are some issues that while no clear-cut and definable answer
might be found, one might still believe on the grounds of faith. Hence, when a power dynamic is applied
to some of the more hotly debated theological concepts, the transference of power to those proposing the
most logical argument, doesn’t provide adequate portioning. Whether this power balancing is expressly
aware on either side is unknown. Despite the inexplicit nature of this balance there is clear evidence that
there are some debates that neither side is willing to concede. The presence of a God infinitely more wise,
powerful, and just than myself leads me to cover my lack of logical understanding with faith. Issues
within my logical understanding of Christianity that I cover with faith, my roommate views as a lack of
truth. This is the basis for our fundamental disagreement in the power dynamic.
There is no explicit definition of goals other than to lead one side to agree with their own. While
initially, my personal goal for debate, and perhaps my roommates’ as well, would’ve been to genuinely
understand and weigh the merits of the others position, the result of personal pride has made it so that I’ve
transitioned to a more all or nothing outlook on the conflict. Thus, the goals established are largely and
unfortunately individualistic in nature. This has affected both the content and relational goals from a
positive place and toward a negative direction.
Tactics
As a product of my roommate’s proclivity and enjoyment of announcing controversial statements
in order to spark more lively debate, our tactics tend to be largely reactionary and spontaneous
Conflict Strategy Brief
demonstrating a clear lack of direction before engaging in discussion. (Fisher, 2013 p. 73). When one side
becomes frustrated and begins to be unconstructive with their argumentation, it prompts the other to do
the same. “Those who are casually involved with one another frequently utilize either manipulative or
non-negotiation tactics to resolve their interpersonal conflicts” (Fitzpatrick and Winke, 2018 p. 6). As
someone who primarily relies on compromising, this results in either competition or avoidance. Situations
as the one outlined, lead to personal stress while for my roommate, enjoyment. Knowing this, he would
approach almost all situations with a tactic of competition. Thus, his tactic to compete either pushes my
own into a similar competition the opposite, avoidance.
Assessment, Self-Regulation, Attempted Solutions
All of what has been discussed results in repetition of what I would consider stressful and
unproductive situations. The USIP assessment test categorized me as 91% of a compromiser while only
8% of a competitor. As this has become apparent in my own self-assessment, it has become more clear to
me that it is the insufficiencies in my own character that lead to a lack of resolution. Personal pride
disguised as theological conviction plays a large role in my unwillingness to compromise where it might
be possible and “cover with love” where it otherwise might not (Jones, 2012 p. 64). Speaking of self-
regulation in such topics and debates as these further complicate matters. As Monroe Price states in her
paper, “The initial problem of every approach to self-regulation lies with definition. There is no single
definition of self-regulation that is entirely satisfactory” (2017 p. 6). Self-regulation has primarily
consisted of avoidance and recognition of my own pride as well as my roommates’. While this almost
certainly isn’t the most productive mode of self-regulation, it creates a peace in the apartment for the
moment. This leads into the solutions, there have been some reconciliatory efforts initially by either side.
There has been occasional slight compromise, however, these have been minor and at the cost of hours of
debate. Thus, self-regulation has bled into the area of attempted solutions on my own part. My third
roommate has since played the part of a third party. More from the same vein as myself he has helped
dissipate the tension on numerous occasions, but not in a manner constructive with coming to agreement
Conflict Strategy Brief
but merely withdrawal. Thus, the process of conflict has been largely repetitive. A pattern of disagreement
responded to by either avoidance or competition disguised by the hope for compromise, characterized by
a power dynamic seeking the upper hand on intellectual grounds produces the cycle of conflict. The
primary category of attempted solution that hasn’t, as of yet, been tried would be explicit discussion of
the underlying issues characterizing this pattern. Whether or not such a discussion would be helpful is, at
the moment, unclear. It is my own thought that it would only result in more of the same pattern, however
speculation has long been the friend of the complacent. I don’t want to discount the ability to come to a
working resolution due to my own unwillingness to engage in a tough but meaningful and explicit
conversation.
Conflict Strategy Brief
References:
United States Institute of Peace Conflict Styles Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.usip.org/public-
education/students/conflict-styles-assessment
Fisher, R., Patton, B., & Ury, W. (2013). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Winnipeg:
Media Production Services Unit, Manitoba Education.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (2018). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics in
interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27(1), 6. doi:10.1080/01463377909369319
Frankenberg, E., & Thomas, D. (2020). Measuring Power (pp. 2-3, Tech. No. 113). International Food Policy
Research Institute.
1 Peter. (2001). In Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
Jones, R. D. (2012). Pursuing peace: A Christian guide to handling our conflicts. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Lederach, J. P. (2003). The little book of conflict transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Price, M., & Verhulst, S. (2019). The Concept of Self Regulation (p. 6, Working paper). University of
Pennsylvania.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
