The interventions that modern day societies undertake to resolve conflicts are mostly a step in the right direction however they usually, simply lack depth or enforcement. These conflict intervention techniques implemented by the public and the government have both their pros and cons, however are all ultimately unsuccessful in solving certain conflicts at hand. The conflicts I’m talking about are usually legally being solved through the justice system, with this being said the conflict remains as all parties usually remain seeking emotional reparations. For the purposes of arguments we will be using the conflict of tourist drivers.
I have a buddy who works for a Kingwood Limo rental company and he does a side gig creating safety videos for roads in our country among the creation of other safety conscious things for foreigners looking to enter Australia. Take informational videos for example, although this may seem like a good idea, it is very basic and doesn’t cover very much in his 30-second video. As well as this, it is not shown anywhere other than the official Australian road rules website, which means tourists would have to actively search for it in their spare time to view it. This is unrealistic and the video is likely to not be viewed, due to the lack of enforcement for viewing. Another large issue with these videos is they are only offered in English. The only other alternative for those who speak foreign languages is reading an extremely long document covering the road rules, which is unrealistic to assume all tourist drivers have read this. The conflict resolution style that fits closest to this intervention would be: accommodating as it lacks assertiveness.
Another Intervention that does not work well is the public taking their own physical action against tourist drivers who may be doing something wrong on the road. There are cases where public will actually be seen confiscating the keys off the tourist drivers. Although this eliminates the immediate possible threat of the tourist driver then taking on the roads and causing a possibly fatal crash, it leaves the tourists in danger and creates new problems. This is a poor conflict intervention as although it solves one conflict, it creates another. As well as that it is also a very short-term idea. Obviously it is also illegal due to the danger it creates for foreigners. The conflict resolution style that most fits into this intervention is competing because it involves one party completely ignoring the others needs.
The final and most positive conflict intervention is petitioning. Petitions often gain widespread, national recognition and spark the concern of many Australians, this has in turn, mobilized the government sectors that may be able to combat foreign driving accidents. This too though has is down sides, mostly the fact that petitions take time, time to make, time to get signatures and time for the government to debate and implement legislation regarding the issue. The conflict resolution style that closest fits with this intervention is compromising as it involves one party giving up some of its needs to solve the issue and maintain the relationship.
There needs to be more debate around conflict resolution and more effective ways of maintaining positive relationships. To do this a focus must be around maintenance and future aspirations of parties involved within a conflict. We must look past what is immediately desirable and see where a middle ground stands. This will ensure the highest possible rate of resolution and overall effectiveness.
Contact me to ask any questions or get my references.
Homepage to see other articles and journal entries.