If we are serious about conflict - and if we want to do something about it - then we need to start by looking at what it is - and what it is not - and what we are doing about it. Some of what we have institutionalized may not be all that beneficial.

1. Issues in Conflict Theory and Practice
Problem
Much has been written about conflict – its causes,
manifestations, methods of treatment or correction
and consequences. However, like many such issues,
there has been little attempt made to integrate what
has been learned into a body of “knowledge” about
the subject that would allow us to grow our
understanding. The result of this systemic inability
means that unpleasant events of the past keep
repeating, leaving us to “treat” them with methods that
have not substantially improved in a very long time.
As with a host of issues across many disciplines, what
has developed is a retinue of conventional wisdom
that newcomers and cynics are loathe to challenge,
for fear of encountering indifference, disdain and,
perhaps, wrath. Should students in conflict studies
dare ask why things occur in certain ways, or why
events are treated in certain ways, they are ordered to
pay attention and stay silent. Such is the tyranny of
instruction by one’s “betters.” They have been there,
done that and have the bruises to show for it. Conflict
management is one of those professions that does
not welcome challenges to their “tried and true.”
Opportunity
Is there an argument for a new perspective, and if so,
why now? Conflict is ubiquitous in our time and space.
It shows no signs of being mitigated or eliminated, so

2. one might logically conclude that we are not masters
in discovering new and better ways of managing
ourselves, and our social existence. We might well be
questioned as to our competence in this very
important field of endeavor. The issue is serious
enough that we need to frankly, and without fear,
examine all that we do and how we are doing it. We
should also be honest enough to admit what doesn’t
work, and, as well, be brave enough to discard what
doesn’t work.
We are in an interesting epoch. While the stovepipes
of learning and practice are breaking down, a fresh,
eager horde of interdisciplinary students are roaming
about our colleges and universities, and entering the
professional workforce. Look at undergraduate degree
programs now and you will see categories of
combined majors unlike anything imagined in previous
generations: examples are environmental law and
sociology, physical education and microbiology,
education and architecture.
What this means is that the narrow views of the past
are being replaced by expertise in a variety of areas,
rather than being an expert in a single area. This
generation studies connections where none were
even imagined before. Doctoral dissertations are now
more highly treasured when they link disparate
elements, rather than “simply” establishing a new
benchmark in a single line of study. Indications are
that academic institutions are fully in step with this
transition, but we need to support their becoming

3. even more imaginative in how they establish, and
relate, courses of study. These institutions need the
support of practitioners. Furthermore,
practitioners and theorists need to drill down deeper
than process and procedure.
Argument
Some of the conflict business models seem
problematic, and some key working concepts and
vocabulary show signs of inadequacy. Let us visit
some examples of this situation.
Example #1
Do you know we don’t have a good definition of
“peace”? Many define peace as the absence of war.
This is inadequate. Let’s spend some time looking at
this issue and determining whether there aren’t
meaningful and useful definitions that could work for
us. How about this debate resolution: “peace between
people and nations represents a state of harmonious
non-conflict which may de disrupted from time to time
due to a failure in management.” This is a simple
statement of being, and cause, about which we will be
challenged to find widespread agreement. However, a
conversation around the topic could bring value in
sharpened understanding, a general movement to
commonality and strategic decisions regarding means
and ends; all of which are needed.
Example #2
It’s also a fact that we really have no internationally

4. agreed method for determining who won a war. After
all this time, and all the wars in history, we still aren’t
clear how to choose winners and losers. War is
nothing like a rowing match or a drawing contest.
Different “authorities” have suggested that you can
determine the winner by counting casualties, lands
acquired or lost, costs expended, or perhaps even
diplomatic gains. What happens, in fact, is that at
some point during hostilities, the parties agree that the
battle is over and that someone has “won.”
Sometimes the declared loser does not admit that he
has lost, and the messages to the taxpayers and
survivors at home need to be carefully crafted.
Reluctance to admit defeat could well simmer for
some time with potentially undesirable consequences.
I would argue that we really don’t know a whole lot
about conflict, an issue that one could say is, at the
upper end, an issue of planetary sustainability. That
being the case, we need to start working on
discovering ways to do a more effective job of
eliminating, reducing or redirecting the energies of
conflict into more helpful activity. And clearly and
emphatically, I deny the alleged “helpful” aspects of
conflict. Practitioners in the conflict field need to go
into situations with a clear head about this. There is
simply no evident goodness in a situation of
conflict, and interventionist time and effort is wasted if
they spend it trying to ferret out positive aspects.
Conflict is failure, and there is no point trying to put a
better face on it.

5. In the remote circumstance where there is indeed
something positive in the conflict event, I would argue
that good is conditioned by, and perhaps even
contaminated by the conflict. It is therefore of
questionable value. If a beneficial element is
extracted, and an effort made to build a new
relationship on that element, it seems likely that plans
will collapse, because that element’s existence may
well be dependent upon the continuation of a conflict
which may have already been “resolved.”
I have heard the argument that “synergy” is enabled
and enriched by conflict – that organizations that use
this model are building an environment that nurtures
innovation and creativity, and perhaps even great
productivity. All I can say about that is, show me the
data. Proponents of this model say that conflict got
the USA to be first to the moon. I answer that
allegation by noting that an inter-national, inter-
organizational collaborative effort might have got the
world there earlier, and cheaper.
Further Study
If we are to tackle the conflict issue we need to know
a whole lot more about it than we do, and we need to
start by discarding a lot of what we take for granted
about it. It’s unclear, for example, whether conflict
exists through a continuum, with a process of
escalation from “face slap” to total war. The literature
seems to view all manifestations of conflict as generic:
being parties in opposition, with no real difference

6. whether they are carrying guns or not, and whether
those guns are loaded, or not. This, as I see it, is a
very dangerous view. A “conflict management
specialist” who is working with a unitary conflict model
represents significant risks to all parties concerned,
not to mention the possibility of him / her expending
vast sums for no real benefit. Are academics and
practitioners really saying that conflict between a
married couple and a co-habiting couple are just two
demonstrations of the same thing? Is an employee’s
contract dispute over work incentives with an
employer the same, more or less, as the a failure of a
supplier to deliver on time?
It is extraordinary that we have yet to know with
certainty whether conflict works as a progression,
from one level to another with a culmination in out-
and-out war; or whether the form of a conflict changes
over time. The importance of these understandings
would seem to be a fundamental need. Just how is
one to address a state of conflict if one does not have
an intuitive understanding of how that conflict began,
how it evolved, in what state it is now and what is
likely to follow? If intervention “specialists” do not
have that innate sense, or a reliable method for
deriving that knowledge they can at best only connect
with, and address, the moment. Without a sense of
evolution – and moreover if context is unknown – the
chances are that only that which is visible and evident
are “on the table.” Real, effective and sustainable
resolution does not come with a modification of

7. superficial aspects.
Conclusion
My research in peace and conflict suggests to me that
conflict is a waste of time, energy and resources with
no real net value to organizations or people. The one
exception is competitive sports. Hockey would be less
interesting if it was a game of inter-team collaboration.
So in this arena, managed conflict goes hand in hand
with competition because this is an entertainment
activity, and people will continue to demand it
whatever the costs or consequences. All parties in
competitive sports are there willingly, so it is a one-off
from those activities and events that cause insult and
injury and which most people will wish had never
happened.
It is another surprise to see the number of “conflict
authorities” who believe without hesitation that conflict
– and its evil conclusion – war – is inevitable. “It is,”
they say, “part of the human condition – it’s human
nature.” I do not accept the notion of “human
condition” or “human nature” if such is used to explain
and justify disagreeable aspects of humanity. But if
there was something to this human nature thing,
might it also be part of human nature that people like
living in a state of peace and security? And if we have
agreement about that duality, we need to spend some
time talking about why one takes over the other from
time to time. One noted military tactics author stated,
“Wars simply break out from time to time.” What

8. foolishness. Wars have clear causes. They may not
be evident and may not be discovered for years, or
ever, but war doesn’t just happen.
Now – let’s talk about these “interventionists.” They
have many names, many titles, and many diplomas
and degrees. Often, they think of themselves as
“conflict managers” though of course that is not what
they do. Boxing referees are “conflict managers.”
They are actually “third part interveners” and their
objective – sad to say – is usually to achieve
something called “compromise.” I define compromise
as a condition where parties in a disagreement all
lose. Yes, lose. By definition if the parties
compromise, they each give up something. They each
move on from their fixed position – a position which is
a statement of what they want, conceding eventually
to their “fallback position,” or worse. As “success” is
eventually realized through a game of loss
management, it is not conflict management at all.
Wins are assumed from an accumulated series of
losses, and gains that may or may not be significant.
The “winner” – if one of the parties can be declared
such – is the one who has lost the least. This is a
game of negation. (This could well be the formula the
generals apply as they tally up the war’s
consequences).
When “resolution” is achieved through this process, is
it reliable (i.e. valid, sustainable and open to
replication) and beneficial? I’d argue that there’s no
clear way that we can be sure. The truth will emerge

9. (for the conflict parties) with time, but when
“resolution” is achieved the game is over. Then,
everyone moves on to their respective corners (and
some would add here “to fight another day”).
To address these deficiencies, we need to work on a
number of fronts. “Conflict management” events need
good outcome measures. Getting there we need to
move way beyond defining a “win” as getting
something called a “resolution” that means everyone
has to lose something. And the so-called “win-win”
one sees in the management literature is also not
suitable for our purposes. It is not enough to have
each party in conflict gain something. There must be a
collective gain – a gain that helps build the
relationship and in turn, and in time, helps build the
organization.
Option #1
One measure that could be looked at is what
resources are needed to address conflict. Parties in
emerging or active conflict might consider eliminating
the need to have a third party intervener. In this
model, success is achieved when needs for third party
intervention are reduced, modified or eliminated. The
parties – all of them – have learned something about
their respective and joint dynamics and know better
how to work with each other. Alternatively, if, like in
many union-management relationships unhappy
events are always dealt with by grievance, and third
parties inevitably become part of the “resolution”

10. process, then there is no evident progress being
made in “conflict management.”
Option #2
While eliminating the need for third party intervention
would almost certainly reduce costs, delays and
perhaps complications (though perhaps not in the first
experiences with this), even that should not be
considered in any way a new and better norm. In that
norm the structure and process remain intact, with
only one party not at the table. Organizations, and
those involved in relationship management, need to
envision a time when issues are identified as they are
emerging. As well, organizations need processes by
which those emerging issues are either stopped in
their tracks, or modified in a way that they become
inconsequential. In this model there is no master-
servant relationship between the parties and there is
no defined authority. These notions should not be
considered earthshaking in a time of flat
organizations, participatory democracy and mission
statements that talk about shared outcomes.
Resolution
As this is, hopefully, the end of the stovepipe era and
the beginning of an era of interdisciplinary studies and
practices, could we not apply the latter concept in our
choice of interveners? Consider interveners who do
not represent one specific, tightly defined field – such
as law. I choose that example intentionally, for it is my
experience that lawyers have shown excellence in

11. these events as being “right,” but do not always
present the skills needed to advance the cause. Many
union-management grievances are awarded without
any apparent gain in conditions, situations,
understanding or power. In other words, the grievance
gets “settled,” but everything else just goes on as
before. Achieving yet another line of explanation or
interpretation in a contract just might have delivered
only more complexity, rather than improved relations
and a “clearing of the air.” These are examples of
failure, not success.
While some rail at the proliferation of laws and
lawyers in North America, my remarks should not be
read as a criticism of the profession, or the way that
the profession operates. Lawyers are good at setting
out terms and conditions, defining context and issues,
and recognizing and respecting precedent and agreed
procedures and best practices. But driving for serious
and meaningful change might mean stepping away
from the legal and normative framework from time to
time. And when resolution is achieved, there is a need
for the parties to drive the changes that are needed in
the laws and rules. Here, the greatest strength is not
in conformity – or even in order – but in an ability to
move with agility in an environment of trust, finding
solutions where none may be apparent.
In my view it is humanity’s preference to be in a state
of peace; to have food and shelter and the care and
love of friends and family. Of course, we have people
on Planet Earth who live for trouble; but we

12. human beings are really in difficulty only when we
allow those people to control our lives. To dismiss our
collective failure in maintaining peace and order as a
constant state of being with only very minor
interruptions by stating that, “conflict just naturally
breaks out from time to time,” is to dismiss our human
capacity to know what we want, even if we aren’t
always sure how to gain it.
Footnote
This essay is meant for discussion and debate. I am
sharing it widely, because I am eager to encourage
discussion among those concerned about conflict. I
am not adverse to challenge. I welcome all
reactions, and will make every effort to respond to all
that come my way.
Managing conflict is an issue of planetary
sustainability. I am not concerned that we can’t easily
determine who won or lost a war. However, I am very
concerned that within our relationship management
activities we have no agreed way to identify, measure,
exploit and share those things that really work. In our
inter-personal and international lives building stronger,
healthier relationships should be the flag that we rally
around. Getting there means that we need some
agreement around the problem. When we get that
agreement we can start charting the course.
David G. Jones
Ottawa, Canada

13. January 2014