阚宝林  译                          

   [1]人世间，小到两个人、大到国家之间，皆会产生矛盾和冲突。矛盾主体多样，解决方法亦有多样。但是，对于具体个案，这些方法并不能一一奏效。为什么会这样呢？因为任何一种特定纷争，都有一剂特效解决“药方”。个人也好，群体也好，一定要开出这个药方。在此，一种“双重关切”的方法或许可以采用，它要求一个人既关切他人、也关切自己，并努力在两种“关切”之间寻求平衡；它也允许一个人在坚持己见、按自己的方式行事时，又能推己及人、行动时考虑对方的感受与判断。

   [2] 陷于冲突困境时，或许有些人选择的应对之策，是回避矛盾。对他们来说，听之任之是让争端自然消解的最好办法，所以不去采取积极措施来应对和解决矛盾。他们既不考虑别人的切身感受，也不顾及自己的真切想法。然而这种态度，使得激烈纷争得不到有效的解决，因为事态很容易失控。

   [3] 举个例子，若有一群员工罢工，而管理层退缩观望、不去积极应对，则往往导致事件升级。恼怒的员工会焚烧公司财物，甚至殴打雇主。事情之所以恶化，是因为雇员们感觉老板冷漠、不作为，对其要求无动于衷；而另一方面，老板却认为雇员的蛮横腔调必须得到压制。只有当管理层积极地去解决雇员们的不满，而雇员方看到老板是在乎他们的，其诉求起码已被管理层所重视，因而不必备感委屈时，双方才能找到平衡点。舍此，不可能达成共识。尤为不幸的是，一些钻入这个死结的人往往是所谓有信仰的人。他们不作为，放任事态发酵，却坚信并宣称凡事应听天由命。但是，事情应当区别对待，因为并不是每个人都有相同的信仰或宗教倾向。许多人信奉不同的神明，有些人信奉的神要求他们在神助之前先自救。因此，他们的信仰不仅缓和不了纠纷，反而却会火上浇油。

   [4] 解决冲突的另一种理念是寻求妥协让步。秉持这种理念的人，坚信对人对己都讲究公平公道，乃是一种好的做法。他们愿意考虑双方的诉求，能就对方的要求作一点让步；为公平起见，也期待对方对己方的一些主张作出妥协。上面的案例中，雇员和管理层都有必要就对方的某些要求作出让步。理想的结果，并非是每一方的所有诉求都要得到解决，而是双方都可以在某些方面相互满足，达成利益平衡。如该案中，更蛮横任性的一方，即员工方应该表现善意、先退让一步，因其勒索对方的行动在先。讲求公道，雇员们就不该怒火冲天，将局面推向又烧又抢的骚乱状态；同理，管理层也应该积极地去解决矛盾，而不是退缩一旁、坐视局面恶化。

   [5]矛盾冲突并不一定都是令人厌恶的坏事。只要有两个以上的人，相互间交织着不同的利益盘算，就必然产生歧见。但分歧，或许能成为一种增进双方了解乃至凝聚力的机会。在前述职场案例中，矛盾的起因，也许只是出于某员工的拗犟，他执着地要让管理层了解正在发生的所有事情，而这些事情却未被关注。于是利益冲突产生，严格监管介入，而导致其他员工反对。接着，雇员中的某个人在上司面前，凭借使其他人相形见“劣”的手段，来为自己博取名声，于是冲突加剧。

   [6]解决此类冲突，既需要顽固的自信，也需要高超的移情能力，能够设身处地替对方着想。具有这种品质的人，容易与对手合作、和平化解矛盾。这种人不仅关注自己的利益，还同样对对手的利益高度重视。他会与他人互动合作，以寻求各方都同意的解决方案。其行动或许会对雇员同事方倾斜一点，也或许对管理层优惠一点。对于一个身陷于此种冲突的人，你还能奢求他做得更好吗？通过与双方的磋商，一方得以了解另一方的观点。实际上，这些工作并不有害于各自原有的诉求目标。

   [7]止纷定争的努力，因做法不同，可能产生三种结果。第一种做法也许对冲突双方都有利，最后促成两方都是赢家的结果，曰“双赢”。文中，首次提到的冲突应对方式，绝不会产生“双赢”的结果，最终双方没有都赢。之所以有这样的结局，是因为其中一方在应对过程中采取了漠然回避的态度。

   [8]正是因为其立场模糊缺位，事态的发展是否符合其利益，令人极难判断。对他们来说，赢和输都不重要，唯一的指望，倒是想在最后得以安稳。他们既要安稳，又不愿为此行动或奋争。或许，有人会设想：当和平安宁最终占了上风，对这些不愿挺直腰杆捍卫自己主张的人来说，也不啻是一种“赢”。这种假定似乎有点道理。但更公正的观点，是判定他们为一群懦夫，因为其没有足够的勇气直面他人，即使受到冒犯时也不敢。

   [9] 人们应对冲突，“双赢”是能够取得的最好结果。矛盾冲突会在一个组织内造成裂隙；但它的解决，会使成员间的聚合力比之前变得更强，使大家更了解彼此的思维方式，更明白哪种事情会导致他们分裂不和。这样，大家今后再也不会对冲突局面产生恐惧，而会更自觉地避开那些造成矛盾分歧的因素，努力去做那些使相互间团结一致、凝聚得更紧的事。

   [10]处理冲突，另一种情形是一方赢、另一方输。此种情况下，就不会达成有效的共识。一方过于咄咄逼人，一方太考虑别人，则强势方必然占据上风，导致前者赢、后者输。打个比方，在一个职场冲突中，如雇员大获全胜、所有要求得到满足，则雇主的主张就无人理睬。反之，若雇主太专横，用高压手段对付员工，则随后员工的下场，往往是因“不服管理”等借口遭到解雇。这两种不同结果，称为 “一赢一输”格局。 

                                                                         二O一八年六月三十日译

 附：英文原稿：

             Resolving Conflicts and Possible Outcomes

[1] There are many ways through which people can resolve conflicts between warring factions. These warring factions can be as few as two individuals, or they might be large people groups like countries. However, the ways of resolving conflicts do not all work in any one given situation? A person or groups of people ought to decide upon which the best way of resolving a given conflict is. A model of dual concern might be assumed where an individual tries to strike a balance between the concern he has for other people and the concern he has for himself. On the one hand he may choose to be assertive and have things done his way. On the other hand, he may choose to be empathetic, and do things according to the way the other person feels things ought to be done.

[2] When engaged in a conflicting situation, some people might decide to resolve the conflict by staying aloof of the problem. To these people staying aloof is the best way of letting things get resolved. They prefer no active participation in seeing to it that the situation is resolved. They do not care much about what other people feel in the circumstances. They do not think much about their personal feelings either. High conflict situations are not best resolved with this kind of approach, however, because things can easily run out of control.

[3] An example of such a situation is when a group of employees go on strike and the management sits back to see what might happen, without taking any active role in what is going on. The strike might escalate into such bad situations as burning of company assets by the disgruntled employees or even roughing up of the employers. A bad situation grows worse in that case, because the employees feel that the aloofness of the management does not address their concerns. The management, however, feels that the assertiveness of the employees ought to have been toned down. If consensus could be reached between the two parties it would be at the point where the management has taken an active role in addressing the employees’ grievances. The employees, on the other hand, ought not to be greatly aggrieved, seeing that at least their cries are being heard by a management that cares for them. It is rather unfortunate that a number of people who fall into this trap are the so called faithful. They let things be, and say to themselves and to others that things shall be sorted out by divine intervention. However, things ought to be done differently, because not everyone has the same beliefs or religious leanings. Many people sere different deities and some believe in a deity that asks them to help themselves before deity comes to their aid. Therefore, instead of their faith being a source of respite, it fuels the flames of conflict for some people.

[4] Another way of resolving conflict is by adorning a compromising attitude. Such an attitude says to oneself and to others that it is good to be fair to both sides of the conflict. Such people are ready to listen to the arguments on both sides and to yield a bit to the demands of the other side. They also expect the other side of the conflict to yield to some of their demands, hence being fair. In the case study above, for example, the employees would be expected to yield to some of the demands of management while the management also gives in to some of the demands of its employees. Ideally, not all demands from each side shall be met, but a balance can be struck wherein some of the wants from each side shall be addressed. Like in the previous case, the more assertive of the two groups will be expected to yield a bit, by being conciliatory. This will be expected of the employees who hold the management in ransom by their actions. Being fair would not see the employees flare up into a fracas situation of burning and looting. Being fair would also see the management taking an active role in the resolution of the conflict rather than sitting back and watching as situation change from bad to worse.

[5] Conflict does not have to be a bad thing or a nasty experience. Where there are two or more people interacting with different interests at heart, disagreements are inevitable. However, such disagreements might be a source for better understanding of each other and even greater cohesion. In the workplace scenario above, conflict might have arisen out of one employee’s obsession with letting the management know about everything that goes on while they are not being watched. The conflict of interests comes in with the other employees being opposed to close supervision. It is further aggravated by the fact that one of their peers would like to make a good name for oneself by making the rest of them look bad in the presence of their superiors.

[6] Solving such a conflict might require one to have high levels of assertiveness as well as empathy. With these traits he can easily cooperate with his contenders to reach an amicable solution to their conflict. Such an individual is not only interested in his own welfare but has a heightened interest in the welfare of the people he contends with, as well. He shall cooperate with the other people to find a solution with which they shall all be agreeable. His cooperation might tend to favor the side of the fellow employees, or it might be in favor of the management. However, what would a person caught in the middle of such a conflict do? Through discussion with both parties, people get to be aware of the points of views that their contenders have. In effect, they do not undermine the goals of each other.

[7] There are three possible outcomes to any conflict resolution endeavor. Each of these outcomes depends on how the conflict resolution exercise is carried out. In the first place, a conflict resolution exercise might work in favor of both sides concerned. Since both parties win in the end, this is called a win-win situation. The first type of conflict resolution that was mentioned in this dialogue would never amount to a win-win situation. Not both parties win in the end. This is because one of the parties stays aloof from the goings on of the resolution process.

[8] Since its stand is neither here nor there, it becomes rather difficult to tell whether things are going the way they should for this group of people. Whether they win or lose is not the issue for this group, but rather, they only want tranquility in the end. They want peace but they are not ready to work or to fight for it. Maybe, therefore, one might be right in assuming that when peace prevails in the end, then that is a win situation for the people who do not want to stand up for what they believe in. It may be rightly opined that these people are cowards who do not have enough spine with which to face up to other people, even though they might be transgressed against.

[9] A win-win result of conflict resolution is the best result that one can achieve. It results in greater cohesion among group members than before the conflict caused a rift between them. They also get to learn more about each other’s way of thinking and what things can cause them to be drawn apart. In future, they will not fear conflicting situations, but they would rather strive to keep away from those things that divide them. They will strive for those things that cause them to be drawn closer together as a single unit.

[10] The other result of a conflict resolution is where one side wins and the other loses. In such a case, no workable consensus has been reached. One side of the conflict is way too aggressive while the other is too empathetic. The aggressive side is bound to have its way over the empathetic side. Thus, the aggressive side wins while the empathetic side loses. This example of a scenario is called a win-lose situation because one side wins while the other side loses. It would be likened to an employer-employee conflict situation in which the employee has a field day over the employer, with all the employee’s demands being met. The employer’s demands, on the other hand are not heeded to. Otherwise, the employer might be too high handed towards the employee. Following such a situation, the employer ends up sacking the employee for reasons such as insubordination.