abraham's conflict presentations

THE ABRAHAM’s CONFLICT

MANAGEMENT BASED ON

GENESIS 13: 1-11IN COMPARISON

TO THE MODERN

THEORIES OF CONFLICT

MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The focus of this study:

(a) To discover the conflict management of Patriarch Abraham based of Genesis 13: 1-11 and

(b) comparing it with the Modern Conflict

Management Theories.

Abraham’s Conflict Management

Versus

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument of TKI by Thomas & Kilmann (1974)

The “Interest-Based Relational Approach” or IBR, from the Mindtools.com. (2011)

The Game Theory by Shane Smith (2003)

The Abraham’s Conflict Management

Background of the Conflict Scene

Genesis 13: 1-11.

(1) And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south. (2) And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold. (3) And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai; (4) Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD. (5) And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. (6) And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance great, so that they could not dwell together.

(7) And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land. (8) And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. (9) Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left. (10) And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. (11) Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.” (KJV)

The Root Cause of the conflict:

(1)their livestock increases,

(2) the land could no longer bear them, (3) and there was shortage of supply.

Here conflict cannot be prevented it is part of growth in material positions, and the need to sustain life, survival is the big issue in this case and basically the conflict is a human need for survival (Fisher, 2000, p.8).

The Abraham’s Conflict management:

(1)Abraham confronted Lot, (2)Abraham discussed the problem with Lot, (3)Abraham presented solution to the problem, (4)Abraham gave Lot the first priority to

choose the best option they have at hand to settle the conflict.

With these 4 steps in handling the conflicting situation Abraham was successful; they parted each way with no hurt feeling.

The Three Modern Theories of Conflict Management:

(a) The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (1974),

(b) The “Interest-Base Relationship Approach (Mindtools.com.,2011),

(c) Game Theory by M. Shane Smith (2003).

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)

by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (1974)

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (1974) identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of

cooperativeness and assertiveness.

The cooperativeness is the concern for others and assertiveness is the concern for self.

They argued that each person has preferred conflict resolution style, and with the TKI people will be able to identify

their style of conflict management when conflict arises.

The Five style of Thomas and Kilmann's are:

Competitive Collaborative Compromising Accommodating Avoiding

The Competitive. “Is assertive and uncooperative—an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person's expense. •Power-oriented •Personal success is important•Out to win •Amicable relationships with others are not”

The Collaborative. “is both assertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with others to find some solution that fully satisfies their concerns.

They seek out solutions that are “win-win” (i.e., mutually beneficial). Collaborators encourage joint problem-solving” (Barsky, 2000).

The Compromising. “Is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties” (Thomas-Kilmann, 1974). The solutions may be fair, but not nobody is completely satisfied” (Barsky, 2000).

The Accommodating. “Is unassertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of competing. When accommodating, the individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode.

Accommodators value positive Relationships with others. They go out of their way to please others, even at the expense of theirown needs” (Barsky, 2000).

The Avoiding.

“Is unassertive and uncooperative—the person neither pursues his own concerns nor those of the other individual.

Avoiding are “people who are low on concern for self and low on concern for others.

Avoiders may deny that conflict exist, consciously. Alternatively, they acknowledge that conflict exist, but they tend to satisfy neither their own needs nor the needs of others” (Barsky, 2000).

The Interest-Based Relation Approach (EBrilliance, 2009; Mindtools.com. 2011).

This conflict resolution strategy respects individual differences while helping

people avoid becoming too entrenched in a fixed position (EBrilliance, 2009;

Mindtools.com. 2011).

This theory tends to be so concern to preserving relationship and very flexible to

sooth solutions to conflict.

It does not limit options to resolve a solutions, it does not fixed to one solution,

rather open up other possibility.

The Interest-Based Relation Approach (EBrilliance, 2009; Mindtools.com. 2011).

IBR Six Rules in Conflict Management:

1. Make sure that good relationships are the first priority. As far as possible, make sure that you treat the other calmly and that you try to build mutual respect. Do your best to be courteous to one-another and remain constructive under pressure.

2. Keep people and problems separate. Recognize that in many cases the other person is not just "being difficult" – real and valid differences can lie behind conflictive positions. By separating the problem from the person, real issues can be debated without damaging working relationships.



3. Pay attention to the interests that are being presented. By listening carefully you'll most-likely understand why the person is adopting his or her position.


4. Listen first; talk second. To solve a problem effectively you have to understand where the other person is coming from before defending your own position.

http://www.desiboyzmasala.com/funnypicspg.asp?hid=11&s=1&c=9&wp=1&ps=9

5. Set out the “Facts”. Agree and establish the objective, observable elements that will have an impact on the decision.


6. Explore options together. Be open to the idea that a third position may exist, and that you can get to this idea jointly.


The Game Theory by M. Shane Smith (2003)

The Game theory is practical tool that address social problems.

Games in real situations winner-take-all, by nature competitive, as only

one person can win.

Other games, however, require cooperation to win.

This theory provides analytical tools for examining interactions among

two or more participants – thus in conflict management positive interaction

of both parties is needed to come up with a solution.

The Game Theory by M. Shane Smith (2003)

Games used to simulate real-life situations typically include five elements: (1) players, or decision makers;

(2) strategies available to each player;

(3) rules governing players' behavior;

(4) outcomes, each of which is a result of particular choices made by players at a given point in the game; and

(5) payoffs accrued by each player as a result of each possible outcome (Smith, 2003).

Games used to simulate real-life situations typically include five elements:

Abraham’s Conflict Management

Versus

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument of TKI by Thomas & Kilmann (1974)

The “Interest-Based Relational Approach” or IBR, from the Mindtools.com. (2011)

The Game Theory by Shane Smith (2003)

The Abraham Conflict Management Comparing with the TKI


1. Abraham confronted Lot, 2. Abraham discussed the problem with Lot, 3. Abraham presented solution to the problem, 4. Abraham gave Lot the first priority to choose the best option they have a hand to settle the conflict.

The Five style of Thomas and Kilmann's are:

Competitive Collaborative Compromising Accommodating Avoiding

The Abraham Conflict Management Comparing with the IBR

The IBR

•Make sure that good relationships are the first priority. •Keep people and problems separate.•Pay attention to the interests that are being presented.•Listen first; talk second. •Set out the “Facts”. •Explore options together.



The Abraham Conflict Management Comparing with the Game Theory

The Game theory

1. players, or decision makers

2. strategies available to each

3. rules governing players

4. outcomes, or result of the game or result of the game

5. payoffs



1. players, or decision makers –

with Abraham, he and Lot were the players and the decision makers,



2. strategies available to each player –

with Abraham, he was the main person who does the strategy to resolved the conflict and make it available to Lot ( verse 8-9),

3. rules governing players' behavior –

with Abraham and Lot they both discussed their conflicting situation in peace, they followed the golden rule to be kind to one another, and to come up to a fair solution,



4. outcomes, or result of the game or result of the game –

with Abraham, he and Lot decided the outcome of the conflict, they both decided to end up the conflict to a win-win solution,

5. Payoffs –

with Abraham, he does wise planning to resolved the conflict fairly, and with his possible scripted solution to the conflict Lot gladly accept it.


Abraham’s and the Three Theories of Conflict Management

My finding to the comparison is that Abraham’s Conflict Management

are in parallel to the Modern Theories of Conflict Management,

it’s not obsolete but workable and still very useful steps to deal with

conflict effectively.

Abraham’s approach to conflict resolution is simple and practical that a man of common sense can adopt without much technicality, confront the person in conflict, discussed the problem, and work together for the solution.

Abraham’s Conflict Management in Genesis 13:1-11, to me, the three Modern Theories of Conflict Management were sum up together.

Abraham’s and the Three Theories of Conflict Management

In summary the Conflict Management of Patriarch Abraham in Genesis 13:1-11 and the

Modern Theories of Conflict Management are in parallel, and even before

these modern theories was founded the Patriarch have already practiced these good

principles of conflict management.

SUMMARY

Questions:

1. Thus Abraham’s Conflict Management can be classified as an effective conflict management

to church sitting today?

2. In what particular sense that Abraham’s Conflict Management are in parallel to the Three Modern

Theories of Conflict Management , we have discussed?

3. Do you agree that the Three Modern Conflict Management we have discussed, was long practice by

Abraham in Gen. 13: 1- 11?

abraham's conflict presentations

Documents