Understanding Conflict Dynamics: A Case Application of the Wheel of Conflict

The Wheel of Conflict:  Case Application

Amid the breadth of tools available to conflict practitioners, one stood out as an important starting place, Bernard Mayer's Wheel of Conflict[1]. Mayer's framework provides a comprehensive map to assist dispute resolution professionals in preparing for complex and stressful interactions between disputants. MacFarland (2016) identified that to be an effective practitioner; you must understand how conflict tends to emerge, develop, and change over time, conditions that escalate and de-escalate conflict, and an awareness of cultural and other factors that influence how we respond to conflict.   As part of my dispute resolution practice, this tool helped diagnose and navigate the conflict to resolution. 

The Wheel of Conflict

Mayer (2012) said, "If we can understand and locate the sources of conflict, we can create a map to guide us through the conflict process."[2]  Christopher Moore's Circle of Conflict is one of the most prominent and widely known tools to build this map. Moore's original work focused on the causes and "drivers" of conflict and categorized them into five elements:  Relationships, Structure, Data, Values, and Interests.[3]  Mayer expanded on this model by stating, "Human needs are at the core of all conflicts."[4]  This model provides five new factors that can help understand how the conflict unfolds; how people communicate, their emotions and values, the structures, interactions, and history.[5]  To illustrate how this tool can guide our conflict analysis, consider this recent workplace investigation focusing on a conflict between two medical professionals.

Figure 1- The Wheel of Conflict (Bernie Mayer, 2012)[6]

Case Presentation

Let's examine a workplace conflict between two medical doctors.  Both physicians have similar educational and work experience backgrounds, having graduated from Family Medicine Residency and practised for 3 years in the same Emergency Room Department at a mid-sized hospital.  They are professional colleagues who universally acknowledge that they have widely divergent styles in communication and practice. Dr A is an outgoing, career-oriented, Type-A personality with a direct communication style and is eager to take a leadership role in the emergency room (ER).

In contrast, Dr B is described as having a Type-B personality; he is soft-spoken and often spends more time and resources with ER patients. Dr B is recognized as a leader in attracting research funding from elite donors.  Since Dr A has been newly appointed as Interim Chief of the ER, Dr B now feels threatened that Dr A is looking 'to get rid of him' now that he is in a power position.  Dr B reflects on several past interactions and comments made by Dr A towards him, and he feels that he is the subject of bullying and harassment.  Dr B files a formal complaint against Dr A.

Application of The Wheel of Conflict

Human Needs

Maslow's hierarchy of human needs focuses on survival as paramount, along with identity needs and interests.  Mayer defines the difference between needs and interests; needs are viewed as more fundamental and enduring, while interests are more transitory and superficial.  Mayer suggests that resolutions are not as meaningful when they rely solely on interests. To understand the drivers of conflict, we must begin by determining the level of needs that best explain the conflict in the following areas:  Survival (e.g., Food, Shelter, Clothing, Security), Identity Needs (e.g., Meaning, Community, Intimacy, Autonomy), and Interests (e.g., Substantive, Procedural, and Psychological). [7]   

For Dr A, we could surmise that he would focus on his Identity Needs and Interests.  He would be thinking about his role in the department and medical community, running the ER efficiently, and his professional interests at stake.  While for Dr B, this would be more of a Survival experience. He could be thinking, "Will I lose my job?" and, therefore, a risk to his ability to provide for his family.  Dr B could also be concerned about his role in the departmental and broader medical community, how he practices medicine with his patients, as well as his interests in procedural fairness in the investigative process.  A skilled practitioner needs to recognize these points and how they must be addressed to find a resolution.   

Communication

Even at the best of times, human communication is imperfect; as a result, there is always a potential for conflict.   Frequently, disputes arise from conversations in which each party generates their own set of assumptions on how they hear and see the information presented.  These assumptions, also recognized as attributions in the literature, play a critical role in conflict development. Each party seeks a logical, rational explanation of the other's behaviour to understand how that behaviour could be excusable under the circumstances.[8]    These "imperfect" interactions lead us to take an antagonistic stance, believing that the other party is devious or acting in bad faith.  Many other factors can affect communication between parties, such as gender and age differences, social-economic differences, different cultural backgrounds, cognitive capabilities, perceptions, stereotyping, and the energy in the environment.[9] 

Applying this to the conflict between the two ER doctors, Dr B commented that he tried to strike up a conversation with Dr A on several occasions, including emailing him to invite him to meet over coffee to discuss his grievances.  However, Dr A was 'distant/not interested' and never seemed to be available.  During a follow-up mediation, discussing miscommunication examples would allow the parties to reset their communication expectations to improve their relationship.  

Emotions

Easily relatable, Mayer states, "Emotions are the energy that fuels conflict."[10]  Emotions include a range of psychological states, from frustration to misery to anger. The parties' emotions are affected by the current situation and previous experiences that may or may not be related to both parties.  We seek connection, affirmation, and acceptance as part of everyone's emotional make-up.[11]  As the parties express their emotions, a conflict practitioner must practise empathy and understanding.

Dr B was more emotionally charged during the interviews; he required more interview time and asked questions to seek validation several times.  Meanwhile, Dr A was more reserved, matter-of-fact, and methodical in his responses.  Although he did state that he was disappointed that the relationship had deteriorated to this point. Reflecting on this scenario, perhaps Dr A's reserved manner was a self-preservation mechanism. Again, he was possibly concerned about his status and had self-worth issues as a professional and colleague. 

A follow-up mediation could provide an opportunity to unpack both parties' emotional or psychological interests.  This would include setting ground rules to create a safe space to help the parties regulate their emotions, such as allowing frequent breaks and providing active support.  A key aspect to resolving this situation in the long term would be to find an opportunity for these parties to symbolically and tangibly save face.      

Values

Each party's values and beliefs can cause conflict as each tries to figure out what is important, what distinguishes right from wrong, good from evil and what principles should govern how we lead our lives.  Most value-based conflicts are unlikely to be resolved.   We often feel unsure, confused and under attack when our values are questioned.  We usually try to escape the conflict by using terms like "I am taking the moral high ground", which further escalates and perpetuates the conflict with the other party.  It is critical that practitioners recognize values and move in a constructive direction seeking common values and interests, leveraging interpersonal relationships, and encouraging collaboration. 

The ER doctors were both engaged and wanted to solve the conflict amicably.  While on the surface, it did not appear that their dispute was values-based, it was apparent that they shared common values of caring and professionalism.  Additionally, as per their professional regulatory body, they have a duty to work together in a professional and collaborative way.  During a follow-up mediation, they would be reminded of these shared values and expectations.  

Structure

We need to analyze 'where and how' the conflict occurs to identify the structural components of the conflict.  These elements may include but are not limited to decision-making procedures, available resources, time constraints, legal requirements, communication mechanisms, system dynamics, and physical settings.[12]  Our analysis must consider structure in the broadest possible sense, including how the dynamics of the participants, colleague to colleague or leader to subordinate, can create and contribute to the conflict.

In applying Mayer's framework to our case, it is essential to remember that medical professionals often lack support and resources in today's medical settings. The Emergency Department of any hospital is full of energy; employees faced with making split-second decisions in a crisis and dealing with highly emotional patients and their families.  In this case, both physicians faced the same structural challenges.   Both doctors describe their working conditions as high-pressure environments with a shortage of skilled staff.  In addition, a change in senior leadership shifted power dynamics, and a plethora of administrative paperwork changes took place without consultation or training.  During a follow-up mediation, the implications of Dr A's new role as department leader would need to be discussed and clarified to permit the parties to move forward collegially.  

History 

Mayer's analysis recognizes that parties in conflict often bring their personal lives' history and experiences along with them. The historical relationship between the parties, the system, and the content itself has a powerful influence on the direction of the conflict. "History provides the momentum of the development of conflict."[13]

Our example shows that both doctors completed two years of specialized ER training.  The investigative process determined that Dr B had spent an additional six years completing an additional medically focused PhD, but had been unsuccessful in that endeavour.  What initially appeared to be common experiences significantly differed between the two physicians.  During the mediation, the process would need to address the assumptions regarding the lack of skills and negative attributions about practice and communication style, which contributed to the conflict.   

Conclusion

The Wheel of Conflict is an indispensable tool for dispute resolution practitioners.  As practitioners, we face unique conflicts each time and must be ready to move through frameworks, theories, models, and tools to seek workable solutions for the parties.  As a new practitioner in the conflict resolution field, I found Mayer's Wheel of Conflict resonated, challenged, and stimulated my thinking and approach.   It provides a structure to address and discuss the issues between the parties during mediation. 

[1] Mayer, Bernard (2012). The Dynamics of Conflict: A Guide to Engagement and Intervention (Second edition.). In Macfarlane, J., Manwaring, J., Zweibel, E., Daimsis, A., Kleefeld, J., & Pavlović, M. (2016). Dispute resolution: readings and case studies (Fourth edition.). Emond Montgomery Publications.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Moore, Christopher. The Mediation Process, 3rd Ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 2003. In Macfarlane, J., Manwaring, J., Zweibel, E., Daimsis, A., Kleefeld, J., & Pavlović, M. (2016). Dispute resolution: readings and case studies (Fourth edition.). Emond Montgomery Publications.

[4] Mayer, Bernard (2012). The Dynamics of Conflict: A Guide to Engagement and Intervention (Second edition.). In Macfarlane, J., Manwaring, J., Zweibel, E., Daimsis, A., Kleefeld, J., & Pavlović, M. (2016). Dispute resolution: readings and case studies (Fourth edition.). Emond Montgomery Publications.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Macfarlane, J., Manwaring, J., Zweibel, E., Daimsis, A., Kleefeld, J., & Pavlović, M. (2016). Dispute resolution: readings and case studies (Fourth edition.). Emond Montgomery Publications.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Mayer, Bernard (2012). The Dynamics of Conflict: A Guide to Engagement and Intervention (Second edition.). In Macfarlane, J., Manwaring, J., Zweibel, E., Daimsis, A., Kleefeld, J., & Pavlović, M. (2016). Dispute resolution: readings and case studies (Fourth edition.). Emond Montgomery Publications.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.