Hi, Jane - excellent and well-constructed post about a subject near and dear to my heart:)

" ... differences in terms of power, values, and attitudes ... " seems to cover the reasons for conflict quite nicely, in my experience.  We bring ourselves to the table, as they say, with our diverse statuses and beliefs.

However, a thing left unsaid is that we often expect others to act in accordance with our beliefs, while not extending that same expectation to ourselves.   If I have strong beliefs about something, it is easy for me to slip into "crusader mode", where my job becomes to convince others of my rightness and to force their behavior to match mine.   Of course, this way of interacting is doomed to failure.

Fowlett's take on the potential value of conflict is a solid position from which to consider conflict in organizations and groups.  When a leader/manager is able to release their fear of conflict and move away from seeing a need to convert others, conflict (defined here as differences regarding how to proceed or act) can be a very useful tool for innovation and creativity.

One important thing to remember is separation of person and belief.  This is core to interpersonal conflict in almost all environments.   Personal attacks are counterproductive and just fan the flames, so to speak.

Another consideration is that a hugh difference exists between problems and issues.

In classes I teach on creative and critical thinking, a problem is seen as something that most people with knowledge can agree needs to be addressed.  An increasing crime rate might serve as an example here, or an ailing economy that is heading the wrong direction.

However, an issue is an expression of how an individual or a group feels that the problem should be resolved.   In the examples above, some folks might feel increased law enforcement is the answer, while others look at the root causes of crime, such as poverty and so on.  We have a great illustration of the second example, as people in our country divide roughly into the camps that think more government or less goverment will help cure the economy.

Too often, instead of clarifying the problem definitively, we jump into discussions of the issues around that  problem.  This leads to long-term war between different schools of thought.  If the problem is explored, identified, and clearly stated as the starting point, especially as a "How can we ...?" question, rather than declarative statement ("How can we best reduce crime in our society?" leads to discussion, instead of "We gotta get rid of guns" or "Put 'em all in jail and throw away the key", which lead to

As usual, conflict is not the problem ... how we deal with conflict is:)

Thanks for a thought-provoking and nicely-stated post on an important topic.

John