In this method, people involved in the conflict or who have differing opinions, they are able to discuss the problem with a very open mind. They focus on conflict resolution and the best solution for the team. They chat by rising above personal emotions with the sole intention of finding the best for the team. The result is a win-win situation. Here, everyone works together. Negotiation, mediation, conflict coordination and arbitration strategies have in common that the parties collectively decide the dispute process, even if they agree to accept arbitration. It is something other than the way the authorities resolve conflicts. The decision-making of the authorities ranges from the intervention of parents in the struggles for children to the decisions taken by teachers, police officers, managers, complainants, mediators and judges. Here, a party often complains and the Authority acts to intervene and end the conflict. This strategy is good for ending physical violence and abuse of power. However, the decisive power of public authorities is limited and, in most cases, the authorities are urged to first consider the potential for conflict resolution and reconciliation between the parties concerned. The Authority can act as an escalator for the process or as a mediator, and it is only in the event of a direct threat that the authority can intervene or govern as a last resort.
Authorities implementing this strategy can improve the learning capacity of the parties and require the parties to take responsibility for the conflict and how to end it. The classical theory of german competition and cooperation describes the precursors and consequences of the cooperative or competitive orientation of the parties and helps to understand what can lead to constructive or destructive conflict processes (German, 1973, 2002). The core of the theory is the perceived interdependence of the parties, so the extent to which the protagonists think that their goals are cooperative (positively related) or competitive (negative parenting) influences their interaction and therefore the results. Positive interdependence fosters openness, cooperative relations and the resolution of integration problems. On the other hand, perceived negative interdependence leads to more distance and less openness and competitive behaviour, leading to distribution negotiations or loss/profit results (Tjosvold et al., 2014). To find a solution, parties must provide additional information, link information they otherwise have or modify the problem, change the rules, modify the actors or structure, or bring in a third party (Vayrynen, 1991). The most popular dispute resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, coaching and arbitration (Rahim, 2002). Conflict resolution can also be achieved by the decision of the authorities. The integration of different techniques one after the other or at the same time has been demonstrated to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016). A specific tool that could build on an already familiar learning approach in many forest communities is the use of “socio-dramas” or games to analyze conflict. This approach would encourage a community to select a conflict that is of direct concern to group analysis. From a list of “motivating questions,” the community could analyze the roles of different actors, their interests, positions, alternatives and likely strategies, and propose options for resolving the conflict.
In a kind of style of play, community members could play the roles of the various parties in the dispute. The members themselves would then use possible solutions. This would make the strategy evaluation process very dynamic and challenging. In a variation of this method, the community could use this kind of game to analyze a conflict of the past that has already been successfully resolved, and then teach and test these ideas in a dramatized analysis of another unresolved conflict.