An attack of character. The last ineffective resolution technique to be discussed here is character murder. The person in conflict, perhaps a woman who claims discrimination on the basis of sex, is called a troublemaker. We are trying to discredit her and separate her from the other members of the group. The implicit strategy here is that if the person can be isolated and stigmatized, he or she is silenced by negative group pressure or he leaves. In both cases, the problem is “resolved.” Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, including dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants and primates.  Aggression is more common among parents and within a group than between groups. Instead of creating distance between individuals, primates tend to be more intimate in the period following an aggressive incident. These intimacies are made up of care and different forms of physical contact. Stress responses, including increased heart rates, generally decrease as a result of these reconciliation signals. Different types of primates, as well as many other species that live in groups, show different types of conciliatory behaviours.
The resolution of conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals within a group is necessary for survival, which gives it a high evolutionary value. [Citation required] These results run counter to previous theories about the general function of aggression, i.e. the creation of space between individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be the case in conflicts between groups rather than within groups. For more information on these 6 steps in resolving workplace conflicts, order the webinar recording of “Keep the Peace at Work: Conflict Management Tactics for Supervisors and HR.” To register for a future webinar, go store.blr.com/events/webinars. They want to push the parties to stop fighting and start cooperation, which means that the debate is moving away from the finger and moving towards ways to resolve the conflict. Unlike the win-win solution, the parties to the conflict find in this result a mutually acceptable solution, which partly satisfies both parties. Compromise can be an optimal solution if the objectives are moderately important and are not worth using more confident or finer approaches. It can be useful when it comes to temporarily resolving complex issues and, first, when the parties involved are not familiar with or have not yet developed a high degree of mutual trust. Compromise can be a quicker solution if time is a factor. The voltage level may also be lower, but the result of the conflict may also be less satisfactory.