Does conflict deserve such a bad press?

We've just started a new section to the 'Persuasive Communications' unit about conflict. In an organisational context it's an interesting topic. Having just completed a report for 'Ethics, Issues and Crisis Management' about Royal Mail's internal modernisation issues, I feel like I've already had a bit of a head start.

When you first think of conflict, you tend to think of the negatives. You wouldn't be wrong in thinking that conflict can destroy an organisation, which is probably why it gets such a bad press. Not many journalists are going to report on a conflict that actually solved a company problem - where's the drama in that?

Theorists define conflict as "a process which begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something the first party cares about" (Huczynski and Buchana, 2004, pg 791).

In our PR class of around 25, we were asked how many of us actually enjoy conflict. I was one of only two to raise a hand. The other was one of my close friends, perhaps that's one of the reasons we get along so well! The thing is, I think conflict is important and highly beneficial in any situation.

For instance, in our group work in PR, conflicting ideas are worked through in order to reach a solution that everyone is happy with. Two people may come to the table with completely different views of what needs to be done to achieve our objectives, a potentially argumentative situation. However, by compromising and talking through the reasons for our ideas, we can reach an agreeable compromise. The key is to arrive with an open mind and a willingness to listen.

Huczynski and Buchanan also said that "Conflict is a state of mind. It has to be percieved by the parties involved" (2004, pg 791). Therefore, if our group had not communicated our ideas effectively to each other, in theory there would not have been any conflict...well not at that time, anyway.

I think it's better to have conflict and resolve the issues early on than to have miscommunication. It's hardly productive if we continue to work on a project with different ideas of the outcome. That's a mistake I made in my first year. It only leads to more intense conflict further down the line, often when it's too late to resolve fairly.

A video we watched during the seminar 'from no to yes' said that the three rules of conflict resolution are:
1. Active listening
2. Win yourself a hearing
3. Work to a joint solution

The conclusion I can draw from the first week of this unit is that conflict is a good thing when issues are communicated effectively and resolved with an open mind.

I will not eat the marshmallow!

I was feeling gutted about spending my Saturday night working on an assignment when all my friends were out partying. In ten minutes of indulgent internet procrastination, I came across this video.

The idea is a simple one - but it has really helped to motivate me. I'm sure I'm not the only one that can benefit from watching this video, which is why I have chosen to share it. I WILL NOT EAT THE MARSHMALLOW!

Different mindsets...???

I was being a PR geek and browsing YouTube for public relations videos when I came across some advice from Duncan Shaw, KCNC-TV executive producer. In his video he talks about how you tailor your client's story for different media, a very well known PR tactic.



However, I could not get my head around the last point he makes. He says that the way in which something is reported in the morning is different to the way in which it is reported at night because audiences are in different mindsets. Mindsets? What does that mean?
Surely you tailor stories for different channels because they have different audiences who want different things from their chosen channel regardless of the time of day. For instance, a news story on BBC1 will surely be reported in the same way at 9am as it will at 10pm, but it will be different to the type of story reported by Channel 4.