Conflict is an integral part of human life and of group dynamics, arising from diverse options, interests, goals and values. It can be both destructive and constructive, depending on how it is addressed (Tjosvol, Wong, & Chen 2019). When people are in the same group, either at work, school, organization, or in the community, they tend to like or be closer to people who share the same values as them. However, many people often find it difficult to accommodate different opinions, interests, values and the inevitable nature of conflicts in groups, and being in the same group does not break or eliminate group members’ differences or even their personal biases. Therefore, one of the alternatives to solving conflicts within group dynamics involves broadening perspectives on conflict resolution in a way that enhances collaboration, fosters innovation, and creates a healthier group environment. In this paper, I will reflect on conflict resolution frameworks such as nonviolent communication, cultural awareness, critical thinking and emotional intelligence in navigating conflicts within group settings.
Intragroup conflict refers to incompatibility, contradiction, or disagreement among members of a group or its subgroups on the objectives, roles, or activities of the group is referred to as intragroup conflict. Every time a group member feels that there is a disagreement between what is happening between them and the group and what they would like to happen, there is an intragroup conflict (Rahim, 2011). There are many factors that contribute to group conflicts, including diversity, competition, and poor communication. Conflicts in group dynamics are often caused by diversity; as mentioned earlier, members from different cultural, social, and educational backgrounds bring unique perspectives and values to the group.
Diversity should not only be considered with a negative connotation that is more likely to cause conflicts in groups. It can also enrich innovation, creativity, and effective teamwork when group members use it positively; it becomes a contributive factor to conflicts when group members take it as a threat instead. Additionally, “competition” is also more likely to fuel tensions among group members, particularly in settings where resources are limited, and this creates rivalries that weaken the cohesion of the group. “All situations of incompatibility lead to competition, but conflict occurs when the parties become aware of the incompatibility and wish to interfere with the attainment of each other’s goal attainments” (Rahim, 2011).
Moreover, the failure to communicate clearly also causes conflicts in groups. The lack of clarity and misunderstandings between group members often lead to frustration and resentment, causing ambiguity of role when members are unclear about their responsibilities, which can result in confusion and conflicts over authority and expectations. In the book Nonviolent Communication, in chapter 2, Rosenberg (2005) explores communication that blocks compassion. He uses the term “life-alienating communication” to refer to forms of communication and expression that make us behave violently towards each other and others, such as moralistic judgments, making comparisons, and the denial of responsibility. Group members often tend to judge each other based on moralistic judgment, which refers to treating other people as wrong or bad when they do not act in harmony with our values.
In addition, comparison is another contributive factor to conflicts in the group, as members tend to compare themselves with those who are in better position than them. This process makes life more difficult as individuals picture themselves in others and fail to fully develop their self-actualization. On the other hand, conflicts also arise in groups when individuals fail to take responsibility for their own thoughts, feelings, and actions and make others responsible. For instance, “the phrase makes one feel, as in [You make me feel guilty], is another example of how language facilitates denial of personal responsibility for our own feelings and thoughts” (Rosenberg 2005, p.19).
Conflict resolution in group dynamics involves a systematic approach to understanding and addressing the diverse sources of tension that arise among members. An Effective conflict resolution seeks to transform potentially divisive situations into opportunities for growth and collaboration. This process often begins with fostering an environment where open communication is encouraged, allowing group members to express their differing viewpoints and experiences without fear of reprisal (Rahim, 2011).
Through actively engaging in dialogue, individuals can clarify misunderstandings and identify common goals, which are essential for collaborative problem-solving. In order to guide discussions toward constructive outcomes, there is a need to utilize various conflict resolution frameworks such as negotiation, mediation, and interest-based approaches. These frameworks provide structured methods for addressing conflicts, ensuring that all voices are heard and that solutions are mutually beneficial.
Thomas & Kilmann (2007) suggest the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) as a conflict management instrument. They classify it into two from It categorizes conflict-handling styles based on two dimensions: assertiveness (the extent to which individuals seek to satisfy their own concerns) and cooperativeness (the extent to which they seek to satisfy others’ concerns). This results in five distinct conflict-handling modes: Competing: assertive and uncooperative, this mode involves pursuing one’s own concerns at the expense of others, often using power to win. Collaborating: both assertive and cooperative, collaborating seeks solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of all parties, focusing on understanding and addressing underlying issues. Compromising: this mode is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. It aims for a mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties, often involving concessions. Avoiding: unassertive and uncooperative, avoiding involves sidestepping the conflict altogether, which can be useful when the issue is trivial or when more urgent matters arise. Accommodating: this mode is unassertive and cooperative, where individuals prioritize the needs of others, often at the expense of their own concerns (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).
The Handbook of Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI), as developed by Schneider-Landolf, Spielmann, & Zitterbarth (2017), serves as a comprehensive resource on a transformative educational and therapeutic model. They define TCI as “a comprehensive, holistic action concept that has the goal of shaping situations in which humans interact, work, live, and learn together such that they consciously experience each other as humane and humanizing” (Schneider-Landolf, Spielmann, & Zitterbarth, 2017). The model emphasizes humane and humanizing experiences across various fields, including education, therapy, business, and social work.
Central to TCI is the four-factor model, which delineates the essential elements that interact within any social situation. These factors include the “I” (the individual), the “We” (the interactions among participants), the “It” (the content or task at hand), and the “Globe” (the environmental context). The dynamic interplay between these factors is crucial for effective communication and collaboration, allowing participants to engage meaningfully with one another and the tasks they undertake (Schneider-Landolf, Spielmann, & Zitterbarth, 2017).
In this sense, leadership also plays an important role in shaping conflict management within organizations. Effective leaders need to cultivate an environment that encourages open dialogue and constructive conflict resolution. For example, leaders of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies have been using incorporating meetings (social hours, picnics and retreats) for the peace concentration to enable students to interact with each outside of class room and this enforces trust building, mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence within group members. Through practicing open-mindedness and cooperative behavior, leaders can inspire their teams to engage in productive discussions, and influence stronger relationships in the group (Tjosvol, Wong, & Chen 2019).
In addition, conflict resolution also requires emotional intelligence as individuals navigate their own feelings and those of others to facilitate understanding and connection. Goleman (1995) defines emotional intelligence as the ability to recognize, understand, and manage our own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. This awareness fosters empathy, allowing group members to appreciate the motivations and backgrounds that inform each other’s perspectives. He contrasts emotional intelligence with traditional intelligence, commonly measured by IQ, arguing that emotional competencies play an important role in determining how effectively individuals navigate their lives (Goleman, 1995).
Indeed, recognizing and managing their own biases, group members are more likely to approach conflicts with a mindset focused on learning rather than confrontation. As I mentioned earlier, conflict resolution is not about eliminating differences but rather about embracing them, understanding that a diverse range of perspectives enhances creativity and leads to more innovative solutions within the group. Thus, groups need to prioritize mutual respect and empathy to effectively address conflicts and strengthen the relationships of group members while cultivating a sense of community and shared purpose that benefits all group members.
An effective or nonviolent way of communicating is necessary in addressing conflicts within group dynamics, as it serves as both a tool for understanding and a mechanism for conflict resolution which considers the groups members’ interests, feelings, needs and requests. Open and transparent communication fosters an environment where group members feel safe to express their thoughts, feelings, and concerns without fear of judgment (Rosenberg, 2005). Active listening plays a critical role in this process; it allows people to fully comprehend the perspectives of others, facilitating empathy and reducing defensiveness. In my class of Developing a Peacebuilding Practice last fall 2024, I had a chance to practice active listening with an other colleague, this exercise helped me get to know my listening partner much better and improved our relationship, building trust and empathy between the both of us. Such active listening exercises underscore the power of active listening in building harmony in the group; “listening brings about changes in people’s attitudes towards themselves and others…People who have been listened to in this new and special way become more emotionally mature, more open to their experiences, less defensive, more democratic, and less authoritarian” (Carl & Farson, 2007).
Constructive feedback and open-mindedness are also necessary for navigating conflicts within the group, encouraging individuals to articulate their viewpoints while remaining respectful of differing opinions. Since conflicts are more likely to be caused by the incompatibility of goals, interests, and values within the group, broadening perspectives serves as an important strategy in conflict resolution within group dynamics, as it encourages individuals to recognize and appreciate the diversity of thoughts, experiences, and values that each group member has.
This approach fosters an environment of openness, where differing viewpoints are not only acknowledged but valued as essential components of the collective. “Open-minded discussions occur when both participants are motivated to work together to manage their conflicts constructively” (Tjosvold, Wong & Chen, 2019, p. 7). As group members learn to articulate their thoughts and feelings effectively, they become better equipped to engage in dialogue that focuses on problem-solving rather than personal attacks. Developing a culture of open communication not only aids in resolving conflicts but also strengthens group cohesion, enabling members to collaborate more effectively and appreciate the diverse perspectives that everyone brings to the table.
This process can be further be expressed in terms of “I-Message” or Rosenberg’s four components of Nonviolent Communication, which include 1. Observation: stating an observation means saying what we saw, smelled, touched, or heard, without mixing in our interpretation, evaluation, or judgment, like a camera would capture what happened. 2. Feelings: this process involves describing feelings that are alive in us at that very specific time that are needed but are not being met. Being aware of our feelings in relation to what we observe and honestly expressing them, instead of being stuck in our thoughts or evaluation of what is “wrong” with others, can liberate us from cycles of violence. 3. Needs: we express our needs clearly, knowing that needs are universal; they make no reference to any specific person doing any specific thing. Needs are things that we need to live a satisfactory life, while strategies are ways we apply to meet our needs. Behind every feeling, there is a need (met or unmet). Finally, we make it clear and doable. 5. Request: we offer a chance to the other person to exercise their power to increase our well-being by contributing to our needs being met. Offering this opportunity to contribute to meeting our needs can meet the other person’s own need for contribution. A request gives a room to the other person to “Say No.” On the contrary, when we make a demand, threatening others with punishment or loss of our friendship if they do not comply with our wish, we are likely to end up in resistance, fighting, or at least blocking of connection (Rosenberg, 2005).
Conflict resolution in group dynamics is a complex and multifaceted process that requires a deep understanding of the diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences that each member brings to the group. Conflicts are and will unfortunately remain part of our daily life. We cannot imagine a community, group, or institution without conflicts. They are not always destructive; as most people would think, conflicts can also contribute to social change when the parties involved decide to solve them peacefully and nonviolently. Conflict should not be regarded as synonymous with violence. Conflict is a natural, normal, and neutral process that we all go through in our daily lives; it is inevitable, whereas violence is the escalated level of an unresolved conflict, which leads to the destructive use of force that causes physical, psychological, emotional, or even environmental harm. Through broadening perspectives and fostering an environment of open communication, groups are more likely to transform conflicts into opportunities for growth and collaboration. The integration of effective communication skills, emotional intelligence, and cultural awareness plays a significant role in navigating tensions and misunderstandings not only within group dynamics but also at a personal level. As individuals learn to appreciate and embrace their differences rather than confronting them, they contribute to a richer, more inclusive group dynamic. Thus, there is a need to prioritize mutual respect and empathy, to help groups not only resolve conflicts more effectively but also enhance group cohesion, creativity, and collective problem-solving capabilities in a way that builds a healthier and more peaceful environment.
Group leaders, organizations, and institutions should always encourage discussions that welcome different perspectives and opinions within groups while maintaining policies that support collaborative problem-solving. Availing trainings on critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and effective or nonviolent communication can also help group members to build understanding, acceptance, inclusivity, and healthier relationships in groups.
Individuals need to develop self-awareness and recognize their own biases when engaging with others and cultivate the culture of active listening and empathy with themselves and with others.
While incorporating conflict resolution strategies into their curricula, instructors should also create opportunities for students to engage in role-playing or simulations that reflect real-life group dynamics.
Researchers should keep exploring the impact of cultural diversity on conflict resolution and group dynamics, especially providing more insights into how different conflict resolution strategies affect group cohesion over time.
Carl, R., & Farson, R. E. (2007). Active Listening,’ Gordon Training International,. Retrieved from http://www.gordontraining.com/wp-content/uploads/Rogers%20Farson%20A-L%20Article.pdf
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
Lederach, J. P. (2005). The Moral Imagination. The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford University Press.
Luft, J. (1970). Chapter Three: The Johari Window: A Graphic Model of Awareness in Interpersonal Relations’ . In Group Processes. An Introduction to Group Dynamics (pp. 11-20). National Press Books.
Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing Conflict in Organizations. Transaction Publishers.
Rosenberg, M. (2005). Nonviolent Communication. A Language of Life. Encinitas: Puddledancer Press,.
Schneider-Landolf, M., Spielmann, J., & Zitterbarth, W. (2017). Handbook of Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI).
